I am really happy I found this blog post. If you like this one you should check out some of his other posts. He has some amazingly insightful other posts on Rust including some very in depth topics. Also, a great comparison of Rust and Go. This is also why I love Hacker News. I would have never found these posts if this one had not made it to page one.
A half-hour to learn Rust
61–70 of 150 posts
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#62This is the most useful introduction to a language I have ever read. Often language introductions produce a "Wall of Complexity" and I failed in my last two attempts learning Rust failed because of that. This is just great. Be warned, the "half hour" part is probably a bit like "99 cents" as a price tag. I've already spent more than that, but it is time well spent. Thanks for writing this!
You might like this: https://learnxinyminutes.com
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#63For a clickbaity title, it's surprisingly useful. Of course, the time to read it might take half an hour, but the time to really absorb it might take two weeks.
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#64This is the most useful introduction to a language I have ever read. Often language introductions produce a "Wall of Complexity" and I failed in my last two attempts learning Rust failed because of that. This is just great. Be warned, the "half hour" part is probably a bit like "99 cents" as a price tag. I've already spent more than that, but it is time well spent. Thanks for writing this!
I agree, this is a great page.
I failed to make it through the Rust book in (I think) 2017, and kind of hated it; I made it through easily in 2019 and enjoyed it... the book has improved that much. Oh, and the compiler error messages are better, too, which helps enormously.
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#65> let x: i32 = 42; I'm sorry but this notation will always make me scream. C is so much simple: int x = 42; not "let", no colon, and no ambiguous "i32 = 42"
You mean, like when declaring an array: int[4] arr; // oops, doesn’t compile Or a function pointer: int (*)(int) fptr; // oops, doesn’t compile So much for the simplicity of C declaration syntax.
One can make the argument that the C declaration syntax is simple, because the rule to make a declaration is to simply follow a type name by an expression where the declared variable is used. The fact that you write "int[4] arr" shows that you don't know how it works (which is not a criticism; it's just not well known how it works).
The correct way is to write
int arr[4];
How do you declare an array of pointers? Again, you write
int *arr[4]; // array of 4 pointers to ints
If you want a pointer to an array of ints instead, do this
int (*arr)[4]; // pointer to an array of 4 ints
int myfunc(int x);
int (*myptr)(int x);
Note that in the beginning (i.e. K&R C, pre-1989) the way to declare functions was consistent: Declarations had to be
int myfunc(x);
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#66I am really happy I found this blog post. If you like this one you should check out some of his other posts. He has some amazingly insightful other posts on Rust including some very in depth topics. Also, a great comparison of Rust and Go. This is also why I love Hacker News. I would have never found these posts if this one had not made it to page one.
I want off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride [1] is a great read. The part about how different OS file permissions are handled in Go vs Rust is great. Even though I don't know Rust, I thought the Rust approach looked easiest since it's accurately represents the underlying systems. It was really surprising to see that Go's motivation in glossing over the complexity is to keep things simple. Is a half working implementation really simpler?
1. https://fasterthanli.me/blog/2020/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild...
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#67Nothing related to the tutorial itself, but I've seen many Rust basic tutorials recently, and this sorta remind me of Haskell - especially its Monad. The Haskell community once was flooded with Monad tutorials[1]. People kept trying to put meanings on this mathematical construct, and had come up with tons of different ways to describe it. The problem is, this simple thing can fit into so many different places, so peo…
The dust is settled and the fight is over. Which monad tutorial won "best monad tutorial?"
I remember seeing someone write that they could tell whenever a new chapter of "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good"[0] came out, because questions on that topic would just disappear from the discussion lists!
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#68I wish all languages had this kind of page as a requirement of the language manual. Author, I will hold your beer...
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dust is settled and the fight is over. Which monad tutorial won "best monad tutorial?"
None of them. The concept is fundamentally flawed. It's as if everything you ever read about C was all about bitwise manipulation operations, on and on and on about bitwise manipulation, to the point not-C programmers think the language is primarily about bitwise manipulation and people start porting bizarre misunderstandings of bitwise manipulation into other languages and claiming they're just like C now, when it's…
So how far can I go in Haskell without "getting" monads? I C that would be pretty far without bitwise operators.
Re: A half-hour to learn Rust
#70This is the most useful introduction to a language I have ever read. Often language introductions produce a "Wall of Complexity" and I failed in my last two attempts learning Rust failed because of that. This is just great. Be warned, the "half hour" part is probably a bit like "99 cents" as a price tag. I've already spent more than that, but it is time well spent. Thanks for writing this!
You might like this: https://learnxinyminutes.com
I use this website as the most effective cheatsheet ever. Forget about PDFs and all these things people put together. Pretty much every programming language is on LearnXinYMinutes and it is like a standardized cheatsheet across all languages. Brilliant, so brilliant!