Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

propelauth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 496 posts

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#71

Post by nemothekid »

wvenable wrote: post #58
nemothekid wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer having extra work done writing code (adding "?") than having to do extra work reading code. Exceptions are functionally invisible control flow; it isn't clear to the reader that a function may blow up if the exceptions are unhandled.

Assume all functions can throw and there is no extra work reading. A function that has no possibility of error is so uninteresting in the context of error handling. Furthermore, handling errors has little to do with where the error is actually caused. In general, you can only do two things with errors: log and kill the operation or retry the operation. Neither of these has anything to do with the leaf function 20 ite…

If I am in the business of writing robust code; then "assuming all functions can throw" means at the very least forcing every function call to be surrounded by a try/catch block? It almost always make sense to handle an error locally if you can; for example if I want to retry the operation (let's say I'm writing a distributed database client), it may make sense for me to retry another node rather than unwinding to the application level that has now lost all context.

>A function that has no possibility of error is so uninteresting that focusing on that is the wrong thing.

I spend a lot of time debugging errors in code that has 0% chance of failing. It tends to involve a lot of matrix math. This isn't something you can say is universally true especially given all the hype around AI now.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#72

Post by richardwhiuk »

zeroxfe wrote: post #37

If you're thinking about building something in Rust, a good question to ask is, "what would I use if Rust didn't exist?" If your answer is something like Go or Node.js, then Rust is probably not the right choice. If your answer is C or C++ or something similar, then Rust is very likely the right choice. Obv, there are always exceptions here, but this helps you work through things a bit more objectively. Rust can be a…

Not sure I agree with Go vs Rust.

I think if you would choose Java or Python or C#, then Rust might not be the right choice.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#73

Post by aisrael »

zeroxfe wrote: post #37

If you're thinking about building something in Rust, a good question to ask is, "what would I use if Rust didn't exist?" If your answer is something like Go or Node.js, then Rust is probably not the right choice. If your answer is C or C++ or something similar, then Rust is very likely the right choice. Obv, there are always exceptions here, but this helps you work through things a bit more objectively. Rust can be a…

This is really great way of putting it. Node/Python/Go were the obvious alternatives for us.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#74

Post by estebank »

weavie wrote: post #32

I've been writing Rust professionally for a few years now and if there's one thing I've learned it's that if you ever write a function that takes a parameter of `impl Fn(&Vec ) -> &'a str` you are going to be in for some pain. Just make it `impl Fn(&Vec ) -> String`. It is highly unlikely that the extra allocation is ever going to be noticed in the performance. Just because Rust pretty much forces you to be explicit…

One day I need to get around to figuring out how to detect when people are going in circles with lifetime errors and have rustc open https://keepcalmandcallclone.website/ for them.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#76

Post by MaulingMonkey »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

I can't get it why people would prefer to add "?" to everything instead of just having exceptions which automate that behavior. In the bad old days of C there were two kinds of programs: programs without correct error handling, and programs where half the loc are unhappy paths that do what exceptions do... with a huge amount of work. Today people are repeating the same mistakes of the past, putting a "?" on everythin…

In theory, I like exceptions. In practice, I hate them. Few languages statically check exception handling - e.g. Java, and even then only partially - leading to stability-ruining edge cases leaking into production in the most unexpected of places caught only by QA if you're lucky. Exception handling codegen can also be rather atrocious, leading to unavoidable performance degredation when third party middleware throws unavoidable exceptions, even when you do fix the stability bugs. They're also a nasty and reoccuring source of undefined behavior when they unwind past a C ABI boundary, an issue I've encountered in multiple codebases with multiple exception-throwing languages. In my personal experience, programmers are also rather terrible at writing exception-safe code.

Result and ? force you to think about - or at least acknowledge - the edge cases. For a throwaway script or small scale easily tested program, that might be a drawback. For MLOC+ codebases where link times alone are sufficient to start impeding testing iteration times, it can be a big help for correctness and stability, while still being relatively lightweight compared to other manual error handling.

Finally - Rust has exceptions. They're called panics. They can be configured to abort instead of unwind. This helps set the tone - they're really meant for bugs, and exceptionally exceptional circumstances. They cause all the problems of exceptions, too - unconsidered edge cases, undefined behavior unwinding past C ABIs, the works. Fortunately, it's reasonable in Rust to aim to eliminate all panics but bugs.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#77

Post by rdtsc »

It's great when wanting to play with cool new technology combines with implementing a viable product to sell to customers. But those two things don't necessarily go together. Quite often they are at odds with each other, and then you have to pick one or the other: either we spend resources playing with cool technology, or deliver a product customers will buy. Neither is wrong if it's your own resources, it's just important to understand that there is a trade-off involved.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#78

Post by packetlost »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #66
bryanlarsen wrote: post #59

I disagree, I believe that Rust is a fabulous language for early prototypes. Sure, if you're going to throw away your early prototype there are better languages. But nobody ever does that. Instead your prototype evolves into your product and early expedient decisions you made that were appropriate for a prototype aren't appropriate for your product and you have a significant refactor. And Rust is the best language I…

> I believe that Rust is a fabulous language for early prototypes. The problem is that TypeScript is an even better language for early prototypes. zeroxfe has the right answer: > If your answer is something like Go or Node.js, then Rust is probably not the right choice. > If your answer is C or C++ or something similar, then Rust is very likely the right choice. The only reason one would choose Rust over TypeScript i…

I think it depends on what you're doing. I'd argue statically typed Python (ie. with type hints) is also good for an early-prototype language and has the benefit of being able to swap out parts at a time via C FFI with Rust or something like PyO3. Pypy with asyncio (so FastAPI?) is what I'd choose for a web framework these days, personally.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#79

Post by galangalalgol »

zeroxfe wrote: post #37

If you're thinking about building something in Rust, a good question to ask is, "what would I use if Rust didn't exist?" If your answer is something like Go or Node.js, then Rust is probably not the right choice. If your answer is C or C++ or something similar, then Rust is very likely the right choice. Obv, there are always exceptions here, but this helps you work through things a bit more objectively. Rust can be a…

Rust is a high development cost compared to node.js python or julia, but I'd say it is about the same as go or c#. Maybe a little better than all of those if you consider time getting test coverage. But if you are prototyping you probably aren't doing that. I'd say rust is a much lower development cost than c++ or java.

Re: I love building a startup in Rust but wouldn't pick it again

#80

Post by hinkley »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #59

I disagree, I believe that Rust is a fabulous language for early prototypes. Sure, if you're going to throw away your early prototype there are better languages. But nobody ever does that. Instead your prototype evolves into your product and early expedient decisions you made that were appropriate for a prototype aren't appropriate for your product and you have a significant refactor. And Rust is the best language I…

One of the things I’ve vowed to do for my next interview cycle is set myself up an empty project with test, and it is appalling how many interviewers assume that implementation without any tests is something a senior developer won’t simply laugh at the suggestion and leave the room.

It takes too long to do these basic steps and then copy them to new projects. And generators only work once, if then, which means they are most useful in languages that have stopped iterating, which is not that compelling.

I’m hoping the next version control system solves the rerere problem and we can build our projects by forking a template project, then pull commits from upstream as necessary.

Post reply on HN