The struggle with Rust

Re:The struggle with Rust by eternalban on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @09:26AM (#13471506)

You came from interpreted Python to compiled OCaml and I suspect that your initial encounter with a compiler is the underlying issue. (For example, being new to FP but very friendly with compilers -- C, C++, Java, C# -- I found the initial OCaml encounter surprisingly pleasant. Haskell was something else though :))

I looked at Rust specs 1.0 when they were released and immediately recognized that Rust is not a 'dating' language, but rather a very serious 'marriage' till death do us part sort of deal. (I would say the same for Haskell, & Scala.) And imho the initial promise of addressing the out of control complexity of C++ was not met.

I have no doubt that Rust is a thoughtful, and powerful, language. But you have to be prepared to exchange vows at the alter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The struggle with Rust by throwaway91111 on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @10:41AM (#13472197)

Of all the things I'd accuse rust of, complex is not one of them. Could you give an example of the complexity? I've not found a single pattern in rust I wouldn't already have to think about in c++, but I have to think about it less because the compiler thinks about it for me. I just can't postpone the confidence until later.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The struggle with Rust by eternalban on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @11:08AM (#13472469)

It was an impression, but clearly it is not a 'simple' language at the syntactic or semantic levels.

(You should not read my OP as a negative critique. I'm merely pointing out that anyone expecting 'immediate gratification' with Rust is likely to be disappointed.)

> the compiler thinks about it for me.

Indeed. One valid approach to categorizing programming languages is by considering upfront vs amortized cognitive load.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The struggle with Rust by gcp on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @10:09AM (#13471868)

And imho the initial promise of addressing the out of control complexity of C++ was not met.

I'm not sure. Type traits seem to be much more manageable than how the same thing is handled in C++ template code, no?

Also, if we can bring in ecosystem effects such as cargo...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The struggle with Rust by eternalban on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @11:09AM (#13472476)

I guess I should have added that I last touched C++ in '96 and never (ever) have had an urge to look back. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The struggle with Rust by gcp on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @03:22AM (#13479706)

I've you've never seen template programming, but just C with classes, then yes, I can see how you arrive at this conclusion. C++ in 2017 is very different from what it was in 1996.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The struggle with Rust by eternalban on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @05:55PM (#13487065)

I was using STL and RTTI. I know the language has substantially improved. These days I've actually rediscovered the joy of plain C.

[ Parent | on HN ]