←back to thread

Flattening Rust’s learning curve

(corrode.dev)
451 points birdculture | 1 comments | 13 May 25 22:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.378s | 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 #
LAC-Tech ◴[14 May 25 02:15 UTC] No.43980029[source]▶
I have taken the time to learn rust and you're absolutely right. It's a very complex, design-by-committee language. It has brilliant tooling, and is still much less complex than it's design-by-committee competitor C++, but it will never be easy to learn.
replies(3): >>43980172 #>>43980282 #>>43980583 #
yodsanklai ◴[14 May 25 03:47 UTC] No.43980583[source]▶
> It's a very complex

I find it relatively simple. Much simpler than C++ (obviously). For someone who can write C++ and has some experience wth OCaml/Haskell/F#, it's not a hard language.

replies(1): >>43980684 #
namuol ◴[14 May 25 04:05 UTC] No.43980684[source]▶
Sure, C++ has a more complex spec, nobody can argue against that.

Complex is the wrong word. Baffling is a better word. Or counterintuitive, or cumbersome. If “easy enough for someone with experience in C++, OCaml, Haskell, and F#” were the same thing as “not hard” then I don’t think this debate would come up so frequently.

replies(2): >>43981521 #>>43981689 #
1. estebank ◴[14 May 25 06:35 UTC] No.43981521[source]▶
What you call "baffling", I call "different". Being different doesn't mean it's "complex" or even "hard" (in isolation), but it can be baffling, in the same way that driving on the other side of the road for the first time can feel baffling (but doesn't mean it's "wrong").