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

Still in love with Rust

dpc.pw

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 186 posts

Re: Still in love with Rust

#91

Post by EugeneOZ »

majewsky wrote: post #81
EugeneOZ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what is the point in this comparison then? I'm not trying to say Rust is the fastest compiler on the planet, but really people don't even try to be objective.

If you're comparing, say, a 10 KLOC C++ program vs. a 10 KLOC Rust program, then the comparison is fair IMO. The end user doesn't care whether Rust chooses a different compilation strategy for dependencies.

End users run "cargo clean" really rare (I can't even name examples - really rare). If we compare regular compilation in C++, then we should take regular compilation in Rust, not something exceptional.

Re: Still in love with Rust

#92

Post by ElBarto »

vaylian wrote: post #10

> Rust will force you to be a good programmer, > [if] you like it or not. This is probably the best in-a-nutshell statement that describes what a good programming language is for me. I had similar moments in the past. Before Python I cared about indention to some degree. But once I got used to the way Python forces you to indent your code, I came to the realization that this is pretty much the way I should format my…

A programming language won't make you a good programmer in the same way as a brush won't make you a good painter.

Re: Still in love with Rust

#93

Post by steveklabnik »

int_19h wrote: post #84
steveklabnik wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have three major audiences: * "systems programmers", aka the C and C++ folk * "functional programmers", largely Haskell folk * "scripting programmers", mostly Ruby/Python/JavaScript folk Each has gotten something out of Rust, and also brought some things to Rust.

You're missing the group which Java, C#, Swift, D and Go co-inhabit. Somewhere between "systems" and "scripting".

I did say "major" for a reason :)

I don't personally hear from many self-identified Java/C# people who are coming to Rust. Maybe they exist and I don't hear from them, or they don't describe themselves as such.

There are some Go developers, but it seems the languages attract very different types of people, so there aren't many. There are some people who do love both.

There are only a few people from D (of which technically if you squint I'm sort of one, incidentally.)

Re: Still in love with Rust

#94

Post by steveklabnik »

ElBarto wrote: post #92
vaylian wrote: post #10

> Rust will force you to be a good programmer, > [if] you like it or not. This is probably the best in-a-nutshell statement that describes what a good programming language is for me. I had similar moments in the past. Before Python I cared about indention to some degree. But once I got used to the way Python forces you to indent your code, I came to the realization that this is pretty much the way I should format my…

A programming language won't make you a good programmer in the same way as a brush won't make you a good painter.

I'm not aware of any paintbrushes that refuse to apply any paint unless you hold them in a certain way. They may apply it poorly, but you're still getting some paint on that canvas.

I think a more proper tooling analogy is safety tools, like the Saw Stop. They don't guarantee that you make a good construction, but they do either prevent or significantly reduce the chance of you losing a thumb.

Re: Still in love with Rust

#95

Post by Sharlin »

ElBarto wrote: post #92
vaylian wrote: post #10

> Rust will force you to be a good programmer, > [if] you like it or not. This is probably the best in-a-nutshell statement that describes what a good programming language is for me. I had similar moments in the past. Before Python I cared about indention to some degree. But once I got used to the way Python forces you to indent your code, I came to the realization that this is pretty much the way I should format my…

A programming language won't make you a good programmer in the same way as a brush won't make you a good painter.

A language (programming or otherwise) is much more than a just a simple tool. It's a way of thinking. A language that guides you toward good solutions definitely makes you a better programmer if you give it a chance.

Re: Still in love with Rust

#96

Post by ElBarto »

steveklabnik wrote: post #94
ElBarto wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A programming language won't make you a good programmer in the same way as a brush won't make you a good painter.

I'm not aware of any paintbrushes that refuse to apply any paint unless you hold them in a certain way. They may apply it poorly , but you're still getting some paint on that canvas. I think a more proper tooling analogy is safety tools, like the Saw Stop. They don't guarantee that you make a good construction, but they do either prevent or significantly reduce the chance of you losing a thumb.

So you agree that a tool does not make a good programmer.

Re: Still in love with Rust

#97

Post by kieckerjan »

arendtio wrote: post #54

> Barriers to entry So far I had two faltering attempts to learn Rust but somehow I didn't find good enough material to get me hooked. I am looking for something similar to the Tour of Go[1], where you can interactively try the language by solving minimal tasks. Does someone know of such material? [1]: https://tour.golang.org

I come from C. What got me started was the O'Reilly book, Programming Rust by Blandy & Orendorff. (It cultivates the your sense of snobbery too. Imagine code examples using lists of "murderous Renaissance artists".)

Re: Still in love with Rust

#98

Post by _pmf_ »

Vogtinator wrote: post #82

Am I the only one who really can't stand rust? I was and still am very much in favor of the ideas and concepts, but when I actually tried to use it my opinion on it turned by 180°: - The syntax is awful - No dynamic libraries - Slow compile times - Many checks are too stupid to figure out some valid cases (maybe that improved meanwhile)

No. I wanted to like it, but a lot of stuff (standard type names, syntax) is different just for the sake of being different.

I wish D would have won the C++-successor race.

Re: Still in love with Rust

#99

Post by steveklabnik »

woile wrote: post #88

How does data-centric work? How is it different from OOP? Can someone elaborate for a person using python? Also, what opinion rust devs have over golang?

> How does data-centric work? How is it different from OOP?

Rust doens't have objects. You have structs, which are purely data, and functions, which are purely behavior. OOP puts the two together. So in Rust, you don't tend to design things by saying "what are the objects I need?" but rather "what is the data I am manipulating and how do I manipulate it?"

> Also, what opinion rust devs have over golang?

I am not 100% sure what you're asking here, could you maybe re-phrase? Are you asking why Rust is better than Go?

Re: Still in love with Rust

#100

Post by vesak »

Vogtinator wrote: post #82

Am I the only one who really can't stand rust? I was and still am very much in favor of the ideas and concepts, but when I actually tried to use it my opinion on it turned by 180°: - The syntax is awful - No dynamic libraries - Slow compile times - Many checks are too stupid to figure out some valid cases (maybe that improved meanwhile)

> No dynamic libraries

While I understand that some people prefer this, I prefer static linking to dynamic linking. So much in fact that I refuse to use environments that only do dynamic linking in any of my projects.

Yes, I have to make a few concessions to that because of the idiocy of glibc, but other than that.

Post reply on HN