←back to thread

Flattening Rust’s learning curve

(corrode.dev)
452 points birdculture | 1 comments | 13 May 25 22:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mdwhatcott ◴[14 May 25 01:17 UTC] No.43979711[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(13): >>43979747 #>>43980029 #>>43980452 #>>43980582 #>>43980897 #>>43981065 #>>43981118 #>>43981329 #>>43981636 #>>43981787 #>>43981862 #>>43982909 #>>43992716 #
rvz ◴[14 May 25 03:28 UTC] No.43980452[source]▶
Maybe Rust is so complex, it is even more complex for an LLM to generate correct code (one-shot) without hallucinating non-existent functions.

Would rather have that than all the issues that JavaScript or any other weakly typed and dynamically typed language.

replies(1): >>43980625 #
namuol ◴[14 May 25 03:54 UTC] No.43980625[source]▶
There _are_ more than two programming languages, though. I feel like most of the debates about Rust devolve into the same false choice between safety and ease.

Before Rust I was hearing the same argument from Haskell or Scala developers trying to justify their language of choice.

I know Rust is here to stay, but I think it’s mostly because it has a viable ecosystem and quality developer tools. Its popularity is _in spite of_ many of its language features that trade that extra 1% of safety for 90% extra learning curve.

replies(1): >>43981514 #
1. NitpickLawyer ◴[14 May 25 06:33 UTC] No.43981514[source]▶
> features that trade that extra 1% of safety for 90% extra learning curve.

I remember both MS and goog having talks about real-world safety issues in the range of 50% of cases were caused by things that safe rust doesn't allow (use after free, dangling pointers, double free, etc). The fact that even goog uses it, while also developing go (another great language with great practical applications) is telling imo.