←back to thread

Stop making me memorize the borrow checker

(erikmcclure.com)
177 points signa11 | 1 comments | 16 Nov 24 23:29 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kstrauser ◴[17 Nov 24 00:22 UTC] No.42160831[source]▶
Rust was a pain in the ass until I stopped trying to write C code in it and started writing idiomatic Rust. I don’t know the author of this blog, but he mentions extensive C++ experience which makes me wonder if he’s trying to write C++ in Rust.

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.

replies(3): >>42160844 #>>42161027 #>>42161181 #
maguirre ◴[17 Nov 24 00:24 UTC] No.42160844[source]▶
Are there examples one can learn from about idiomatic rust? I would appreciate either books or projects to learn from.
replies(3): >>42160890 #>>42160891 #>>42161001 #
galangalalgol ◴[17 Nov 24 00:33 UTC] No.42160891[source]▶
Rust, like ocaml, is best when used purely functionally until you run into something that isn't performant unless its imperative. But unlike ocaml or haskell there is a safe imperative middle ground before going all the way to unsafe. People who write modern C++ with value semantics etc. seem to have a lot less trouble than people coming from Java.
replies(3): >>42161004 #>>42161039 #>>42165146 #
1. lowbloodsugar ◴[17 Nov 24 00:54 UTC] No.42161004{3}[source]▶
I mean, I don’t write it that way, but if it works for you. I wouldn’t say you have to write it that way so I wouldn’t want to put anyone off.

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.