Asterinas: OS kernel written in Rust and providing Linux-compatible ABI

Rust code is usually well commented in my experience.

Instead of asking "what other languages and project (open/closed, big/small, web/mobile/desktop, game/consumerapp/bizapp) have you experience with as to come to this conclusion?" people down vote you.

So lemme ask: what other languages and project (open/closed, big/small, web/mobile/desktop, game/consumerapp/bizapp) have you experience with as to come to this conclusion?

I expect the downvotes to be there because it's talking positively about rust, which is blasphemy! /j

for the downvoters: it’s true, and it’s because of rustdoc and doctests. comments become publicly browsable documentation, and any code contained within is run as a part of the test suite.

think the downvotes are because of relevance. point was not using advanced rust features, not being documented

I don't see how the relevance is in question. GGGP said "There's actually a decent amount of comments (for rust code)." GGP seems to be responding to that parenthetical.

I'm guessing a lot of any perception of a lack of comments or documentation in a rust codebase comes down to how new or green a developer is to rust.

If you're just starting out or doing something relatively simple, your goal is to get something working. This is so true regardless of the language.

Javadoc pioneered this 25+ years ago and despite that, there's plenty of poorly-documented Java code out there. Orders of magnitude more of it than all of the Rust code in existence, in fact.

Intuition tells me that Rust is young enough to attract a certain type of early adopter, the kind of programmer who is more likely to document their code well from the outset.

I've never looked at any Rust. But this mini thread leaves me expecting the Rust world to be like Perl. The experienced Rust/Perl user uses every feature and short cut for magnificently dense expressive (alt. incomprehensible gibberish to anyone else) and doesn't comment it because the code is self evident. When actually they just want to code wank showing how clever they are and how lazy anyone else is if they haven't take the time to understand the details and thus understand.

But like I said, I've not looked at any Rust despite its marketing success.

I've read a lot more Rust than I've written at this point... A lot of what I've seen has been really easy to reason with and follow. There are a few features that are a bit harder to grok, especially with complex access lifetimes. Generally those complexities have been more from the inexperienced as a lot of what I've seen from more experienced devs simplifies those complex points of interaction making the entirety more easy to reason with.

I find a lot of the complexities tend to come from devs with more experience in communities that tend to add complexity by nature (C# and Java devs in particular). YMMV of course, that's just been my take so far. I've written a few simple web (micro)services in Rust and a couple of playground Tauri apps. I will say the simpler tasks have been incredibly easy to work through.

Though I may not have always taken the absolutely most performant, least memory path of work, it's been smaller/faster than other platforms and languages I have more experience with. And that's without even getting into build/compile time optimization options.