Stop making me memorize the borrow checker

A theme I’m noticing more frequently as Rust gains popularity is people trying to use Rust even though it doesn’t fit their preferred way of coding.

There is a learning curve for everyone when they pick up a new language: You have to learn how to structure your code in ways that work with the language, not in the ways you learned from previous languages. Some transitions are easier than others.

There should come a point where the new language clicks and you don’t feel like you’re always running into unexpected issues (like the author of this article is). I might have empathized more with this article in my first months with Rust, but it didn’t resonate much with me now. If you’re still relying on writing code and waiting for the borrow checker to identify problems every time, you’re not yet at the point where everything clicks.

The tougher conversation is that for some people, some languages may never fully agree with their preferred style of writing code. Rust is especially unforgiving for people who have a style that relies on writing something and seeing if it complies, rather than integrating a mental model of the language so you can work with it instead of against it.

In this case, if someone reaches a point where they’re so frustrated that they have to remember the basic rules of the language, why even force yourself to use that language? There are numerous other languages that have lower mental overhead, garbage collection, relaxed type rules, and so on in ways that match different personalities better. Forcing yourself to use a language you hate isn’t a good way to be productive.

What did the Rust community expect to happen if they so strongly and often claimed that Rust is easy to learn and user-friendly?

And how did we get from that to “for some people, some languages may never fully agree with their preferred style of writing code”?

If a C++ programmer (ideal Rust learner) says four years in that the ergonomics of Rust are bad, then based on my own experience I will believe them.

I don’t write something to see if it compiles either, I design every single line of code. But with Rust (and a lesser extent C++) a lot of that design is for memory safety and not necessary for the algorithms.

> C++ programmer (ideal Rust learner)

Well there's your problem. Rust does look like a semi-colon language, that's intentional, but if that's all you understand you're probably going to struggle.

The "ideal Rust learner" would have an ML, such as Ocaml or F#, maybe some Lisp or a Scheme something like that, as well as a semi-colon language like C or Java not just the weird forced perspective from C++

One experiment I probably won't get to try is to teach Rust as First Language for computer science students. Some top universities (including Oxbridge) teach an ML as first language, but neither teaches Rust because of course Rust is (relatively) new. The idea is, if you teach Rust as first language your students don't have to un-learn things from other languages. You can teach the move assignment semantic not as a weird special case but as it it really is in Rust - the obvious default assignment semantic. I pass a Goose to a function, obviously the Goose is gone, I gave it to the function. Nobody is surprised that when they pass a joint they don't have the joint any more, so why are we surprised when we pass a String to a function and the String is gone now? And once we've seen this, the motivation for borrows (reference types) is obvious, often we don't want to give you the string, we just want to tell you about a string that's still ours. And so on.

> Well there's your problem. Rust does look like a semi-colon language, that's intentional, but if that's all you understand you're probably going to struggle.

This is a silly point to make. What makes a C++ programmer a C++ programmer is not an uncanny ability to find a semicolon on the keyboard. It's stuff like using low-level constructs, having a working mental model of how to manage resources at a low level down and how to pass and track ownership of resources across boundaries. This is not a syntax issue.

It's absurd. You have people claiming that Rust is the natural progression for C++ programmers because their skillsets, mental models, and application domain overlap, but here are you negating all that and try to portray it as a semicolon issue?