Maybe not! Maybe it’s truly just Rust being stubborn and difficult. However, it’s such an easy trap to fall into that I’ve gotta think it’s at least possible.
Maybe not! Maybe it’s truly just Rust being stubborn and difficult. However, it’s such an easy trap to fall into that I’ve gotta think it’s at least possible.
Thinking about your answer a bit more, one of the paradigms of Rust is “there shall be many immutable references or just one mutable reference” and so I can see that functional programming would naturally lead to that. But it’s a paradigm that works with the underlying principles rather than the true nature of the language, IMHO.
I do it by thinking about different domains of object graphs, and how data moves between them, for example.
1. No class hierarchies and inheritance.
2. The borrow checker forces a tree structured ownership style. You don't get spaghetti ownership. This is generally great because that coding style leads to fewer bugs. But sometimes it is annoying and you have to use indices rather than pointers as references.