The context makes this much better:
In [other languages], I could end up chasing silly bugs and waste time debugging and tracing to find that I made a typo or ran into a language quirk that gave me an unexpected nil pointer. That situation is almost non-existent in Rust, it's just me and the problem. Rust is honest and upfront about its quirks and will yell at you about it before you have a hard to find bug in production.
(just so this post is self-contained: source)
Is it okay to submit year old quote?
We’re already seeing a shift from a focus on pure language semantics with syntax and editor tooling seen as side projects, to a focus on usability and tooling. Rust is semantically an OCaml with typeclasses, affine types, and unboxed types. What keeps Rust from being an Inria PhD student’s thesis that nobody uses is its focus on tooling, good compiler diagnostics, and ecosystem. I’d like to see some language implementors having that focus from the beginning
source: Tooling for Tooling - , emphasis mine
The problem with Rust it appears,
that it leaves programmers in tears
if they have to go back
to languages that lack
in short they've got feature-arrears.
by @llogiq on r/rust, commenting on a post titled “I never want to return to Python”.
The Rust mission -- let you write software that's fast and correct, productively -- has never been more alive. So next Rustconf, I plan to celebrate:
- All the buffer overflows I didn't create, thanks to Rust
- All the unit tests I didn't have to write, thanks to its type system
- All the null checks I didn't have to write thanks to Option and Result
- All the JS I didn't have to write thanks to WebAssembly
- All the impossible states I didn't have to assert "This can never actually happen"
- All the JSON field keys I didn't have to manually type in thanks to Serde
- All the missing SQL column bugs I caught at compiletime thanks to Diesel
- All the race conditions I never had to worry about thanks to the borrow checker
- All the connections I can accept concurrently thanks to Tokio
- All the formatting comments I didn't have to leave on PRs thanks to Rustfmt
- All the performance footguns I didn't create thanks to Clippy
Adam Chalmers in Rustconf 2023 recap
From Alice Ryhl on the Linux Kernel Mailing List:
For Binder to continue to meet Android's needs, we
need better ways to manage (and reduce!) complexity without increasing
The biggest change is obviously the choice of programming language. We
decided to use Rust because it directly addresses a number of the
challenges within Binder that we have faced during the last years.
On last week's TWiR I read the following qote in Was Rust Worth It? by Jarrod Overson:
Programming in Rust is like being in an emotionally abusive relationship. Rust screams at you all day, every day, often about things that you would have considered perfectly normal in another life. Eventually, you get used to the tantrums. They become routine. You learn to walk the tightrope to avoid triggering the compiler’s temper. And just like in real life, those behavior changes stick with you forever.
The framing of this is a bit unfortunate, and after I shared it in my friend group someone came up with a different framing:
This quote can be attributed to Poyo_SSB if it makes it to TWiR
Good grief that says more about the author of that statement than it does about Rust. Rust does not scream at me or have tantrums. I have constructive discussions with the compiler.
How about "Programming in Rust is like playing in the yard with your loving mother watching out that nothing bad happens to you."
But really, personifying these things is not very meaningful.
Dude still got it backwards. Having "someone" (something) catch your mistakes is liberating and good, not bad.
I really despise both excerpts and think that they shouldn't be Quote of the Week.
True, but I think a shared experience for some people is that -- after some initial very nice compiler errors that almost let you leave your c induced segfault trauma behind -- the compiler informs you about a lot of things that you don't really understand and don't want to think about. So it does feel like someone is nagging you. The goal of the story is to foreshadow a time in which you got used to the compiler errors and welcome the change in thinking it introduced and what you learned from it.
Are you talking about the Rust compiler or C++?
I guess compiler error trauma is greater for those who have never used a compiled language but I'm not seeing it as worse with Rust.
When I’m writing UI code in JS, I tend to run a lot of programs that aren’t finished yet. I have parts of it built, and want to try them out to see if it “feels” good to actually use, even though I know perfectly well that some of the functionality is missing.
You can, technically, do that in Rust, but you have to explicitly stub out the missing parts with
todo!(), which is annoying enough to do that I’ll probably just finish the design instead.
The trauma I was refering to is C compilers not giving you any errors and then just segfaulting at runtime. I just realized that that's not even a compile time issue. At the time I came from python and back then compile time and runtime where new words to me.
And your're right, apart from some errors being hard to understand because the error they describe is complex the error messages in rust are wayyyy better than what any Cpp compiler I encountered can give you.
Ah yes, that trauma hit me when I first learned C in the early 1980's. I was shocked to find the compiler would build totally non-functional executables that crashed in mysterious ways and often required the machine to be rebooted (MS DOS days).
That surprised me even though I had prior experience of a compiled language. ALGOL did not do that.