Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's also very exciting

Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ... by carlmr on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @04:44AM (#18281777)

#1 I find is not worse than C++, granted there's more complexity here than in Python but in terms of cleanness its ok IMHO. Because as you said there's nothing unnecessary. Rust addresses different problems than Python, so we should compare apples with apples.

On the second one you got me though, I find the macro syntax a bit horrible. Sometimes I just want simple text substitution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ... by iopq on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @06:24AM (#18282180)

I'm comparing it to Haskell syntax for the same thing, which is much cleaner

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ... by olavk on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @06:47AM (#18282269)

Haskell does not have borrowing and lifetime specifiers though, which is what makes the Rust example more dense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ... by iopq on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @11:02AM (#18283941)

Haskell has nice syntax for generics, no stupid <> to forward declare type parameters

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ... by User23 on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @06:44AM (#18282256)

C++ templates also aren't winning any readability awards.

[ Parent | on HN ]