(Is there anyone who learns Rust who isn't already a proficient but frustrated C++ programmer?)
Yes, I learnt Rust as a JavaScript/PHP/Python programmer who needed better performance for a project, and I'd thoroughly recommend it as a first low-level language. I found it much easier to learn than C++. There were a few new concepts to learn, but:
- There were far fewer than C++.
- The Rust Book provided a free and very approachable resource for learning them.
- The Rust compiler gave me immediate feedback if I was doing something wrong (no unexpected bugs in production)
- Most of my JS skills translated pretty straightforwardly
- /r/rust has a very helpful community which filled in any gaps that weren't covered elsewhere.
C is simple when you're working with toy examples, but as soon as you try to do anything moderately complex the complexity quickly jumps. e.g. If I wan't to use something as basic as a HashMap this is a trivial import in Rust or C++, but a non-trivial task in C. You either have to build/import a library (which is not that easy in C), or write one yourself! Same for string operations!
We have a lot of people who come from ruby/python/js, and/or haskell/ocaml/scala. They find Rust an easier foray into systems languages than C++.
And even some C veterans who never got on board the C++ train.
Parent was suggesting they are already a programmer, so I assumed they already had at least a grasp of how pointers and manual memory management work. If one happens to lack such knowledge, I agree learning C is an excellent first step.
I think what made RAII seem like a good idea was seeing a large C code base at a major company which had a consistent approach to cleanup and error handling. It's very possible to write good code that way, but it takes manual effort, discipline, consistency. At that point I understood that RAII was about letting the compiler handle what I was already doing in C.
But for the most part, yes it is about "foundational concepts". A lot of the time when you learn system level programming people will refer to certain quirks or terms from the C world.
I have never used C professionally, so I never worked with a large, complex code base. But I think getting the foundational concepts from it as a first language has helped a lot along the way picking up and switching between languages.
C is a fine language, but it is from the 60s and 70s and feels like it. Rust is very nice, although poor for half-assed prototyping (which is actually maybe a good thing). Both are fine choices for systems-level programming.
That, and lighting fast compile times, where programming feels like (oh, the heresy) a _drastically reduced C++_.
* Legacy code
* Embedded (including drivers, bare metal etc.)
* Portability, FFI, etc.
Performance used to be another major reason, but in $CURRENT_YEAR, if that's your goal, C++ and Rust are just as performant and there's very little reason not to opt into them.
The other major reason to learn C is that it's a great "hardcore introductory" language that will expose you to foundational concepts like pointers and memory management (it's really hard to understand what problems Rust is trying to solve if you're not familiar with malloc and free, for instance), but if you're already programming that's less of an issue.