[flagged]
replies(13):
I'm trying to phrase this as delicately as I can but I am really puzzled.
If someone wrote an article about how playing the harp is difficult, just stick with it... would you also say that playing the harp is a terrible hobby?
I started to learn Rust, but I was put off by the heavy restrictions the language imposes and the attitude that this is the only safe way. There's a lack of acknowledgement, at least in beginner materials, that by choosing to write safe Rust you're sacrificing many perfectly good patterns that the compiler can't understand in exchange for safety. Eventually I decided to stop because I didn't like that tradeoff (and I didn't need it for my job or anything)
Historically, programmers drastically overestimate their ability to write perfectly safe code, so it's an enormous benefit if the compiler is able to understand whether it's actually safe.
The second part of your statement is very debatable based on what safe means in this case, and whether it's an enormous benefit for a given situation.
There's plenty of stories [0][1] about Rust getting in the way and being very innappropriate for certain tasks and goals, and those "enormous benefits" can become "enormous roadblocks" in different perspectives and use cases.
In my personal and very subjective opinion I think Rust can be very good when applied to security applications, realtime with critical safety requirements (in some embedded scenarios for example), that sort of stuff. I think it really gets in the way too much in other scenarios with demanding rules and pattern that prevent from experimenting easily and exploring solutions quickly.
[0]https://barretts.club/posts/rust-for-the-engine/ [1]https://loglog.games/blog/leaving-rust-gamedev/