←back to thread

Unexpected productivity boost of Rust

(lubeno.dev)
517 points bkolobara | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 15:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
BinaryIgor ◴[27 Aug 25 17:30 UTC] No.45042483[source]▶
Don't most of the benefits just come down to using a statically typed and thus compiled language? Be it Java, Go or C++; TypeScript is trickier, because it compiles to JavaScript and inherits some issues, but it's still fine.

I know that Rust provides some additional compile-time checks because of its stricter type system, but it doesn't come for free - it's harder to learn and arguably to read

replies(17): >>45042692 #>>45043045 #>>45043105 #>>45043148 #>>45043241 #>>45043589 #>>45044559 #>>45045202 #>>45045331 #>>45046496 #>>45047159 #>>45047203 #>>45047415 #>>45048640 #>>45048825 #>>45049254 #>>45050991 #
1. marcosdumay ◴[27 Aug 25 18:59 UTC] No.45043589[source]▶
> Don't most of the benefits just come down to using a statically typed and thus compiled language?

Doesn't have to be compiled to be statically typed... but yeah, probably.

> Be it Java, Go or C++;

Lol! No. All static type systems aren't the same.

TypeScript would be the only one of your examples that brings the same benefit. But the entire system is broken due to infinite JS Wats it has to be compatible with.

> it's harder to learn and arguably to read

It's easier to learn it properly, harder to vibe pushing something into it until it seems to works. Granted, vibe pushing code into seemingly working is a huge part of initial learning to code, so yeah, don't pick Rust as your first language.

It's absolutely not harder to read.