Re:Rusty Ownership and the Lifecycle’s Stone
by ok123456 on Sunday November 27, 2022 @02:17PM
(#33765729)
> implementing data structures in any language is hard.
Why make it harder.
> excellent standard library.
The standard library is intentionally bare-bones. They don't want to maintain libraries in std, and want you to use crates.
> wider ecosystem of libraries
The quality of these is quite poor in a lot of cases. People literally make blog posts into crates.
Re:Rusty Ownership and the Lifecycle’s Stone
by mtlmtlmtlmtl on Sunday November 27, 2022 @02:36PM
(#33765939)
As someone coming from C I find the stdlib is fine. It has all the datastructures you need for the vast majority of code. It doesn't have very domain specific things like the kind of structures a text editor might use, for instance. That's fine.
As for the quality of crates, yes, this is the case in any language. Using a library includes the responsibility of making sure the quality is up to scratch. This is not unique to Rust.
Re:Rusty Ownership and the Lifecycle’s Stone
by antonvs on Sunday November 27, 2022 @04:10PM
(#33766992)
> Why make it harder.
To achieve static memory safety.
If you don’t need or want that, you’re probably better off sticking to other languages. Although hopefully, not something like C or C++ which the US government now advises against using for security reasons.
And implementing data structures in any language is hard. It's just a harder thing to do than most things because there's always gonna be a lot of gnarly implementation details and edgecases.