←back to thread

177 points signa11 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kstrauser ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. nh2 ◴[] No.42161039{3}[source]
It's difficult to really use Rust purely functionally given that it removed pure functions from its type system, and that has a limited stack size.