They forgot the part where they were euphoric, not because of the approval of any thought leader, but because they were enlightened by their own intelligence.
About code using immediately-invoked closure like if let Err(e) = (|| -> io::Result<()>{…})()
:
Haskell has do notation; we have don't notation
https://twitter.com/myrrlyn/status/1095092284008218624
From Say the same thing about seatbelts in a car. If you don’t plan to have accidents... | Hacker News, comparing Rusts safety guarantees with seat-belts.
Say the same thing about seatbelts in a car. If you don’t plan to have accidents, why do you need seatbelts?
Car accidents, like mistakes in programming are a risk that has a likelihood that is non-zero. A seatbelt might be a little bit annoying when things go well, but much less so when they don’t. Rust is there to stop you in most cases when you try to accidentally shot yourself into the leg, unless you deliberately without knowing what you are doing while yelling “hold my beer” (unsafe). And contrary to popular belief even in unsafe blocks many of Rust’s safety guarantees hold, just not all.
…
Just like with the seatbelt, there will be always those that don’t wear one for their very subjective reasons (e.g. because of edge cases where a seatbelt could trap you in a burning car, or because it is not cool, or because they hate the feeling and think accidents only happen to people who can’t drive).
TWiR 273 had some good reads again!
This one aptly summarizes just how much our consolidation work has paid off!
.. the experience I had in 2019 was dramatically better than the first time I touched the language. After a month I'm feeling very comfortable, and looking forward to writing more.
Ryan Ragona on his blog post: Learning Rust in 2019
Can you eli5 why
TryFrom
andTryInto
matters, and why it's been stuck for so long ? (the RFC seems to be 3 years old)If you stabilise
Try{From,Into}
, you also want implementations of the types instd
. So you want things likeimpl TryFrom<u8> for u16
. But that requires an error type, and that was (I believe) the problem.
u8
tou16
cannot fail, so you want the error type to be!
. Except using!
as a type isn't stable yet. So use a placeholder enum! But that means that once!
is stabilised, we've got thisInfallible
type kicking around that is redundant. So change it? But that would be breaking. So make the two isomorphic? Woah, woah, hold on there, this is starting to get crazy...*new person bursts into the room* "Hey, should
!
automatically implement all traits, or not?""Yes!" "No!" "Yes, and so should all variant-less enums!"
Everyone in the room is shouting, and the curtains spontaneously catching fire. In the corner, the person who proposed
Try{From,Into}
sits, sobbing. It was supposed to all be so simple... but this damn!
thing is just ruining everything.... That's not what happened, but it's more entertaining than just saying "many people were unsure exactly what to do about the
!
situation, which turned out to be more complicated than expected".
mikesu9: What is the
!
type?
LousyBeggar: The never type for computations that don't resolve to a value. It's named after its stabilization date.
LousyBeggar, on reddit
Nobody contributed. Rust started writing itself to avoid human bugs.
Asimov needs a 4th law to
#![forbid(unsafe_code)]
.
-- rat9988 and CUViper on Reddit.
-- Rust's ownership is difficult.
-- Yes, ownership is difficult. For such a difficult thing, you (are going to) ever check by hand rather than having machine do it for you.
-- @Cryolite on Twitter (Japanese)
From normally-aspirated::<fish>
on the (unofficial) community discord:
Rust is OOP
Ownership Oriented Programming
"all the ergonomic improvements in rust 2018 are really messing up my book that consists entirely of running face-first into compiler errors so i can explain concepts." -- Alexis Beingessner, author of "Learning Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists"
C++ prevents "thing without pointer" and Rust prevents "pointer without thing"
I quite liked TomP's answer:
One major difference is that Ada was created at a time when most military computers were single-core with in-order sequential execution and no cache. Although limited SIMD existed, any other concurrency was very coarse-grained. That’s the underlying execution model for C, Pascal, C++, etc.
Rust was created to address the complexity of multi-core processors with multi-level cache hierarchies where computational efficiency may require much concurrency. In my experience few humans are capable of error-free design and implementation of highly-concurrent systems unless they employ tooling that flags their errors in conceptualization or implementation.
—/u/casual-cryptarch on explaining traits and references at the same time
Yes, Markdown is like Frankenstein's monster before applying electricity, and Org-mode is the monster after applying electricity.
-/u/jimuazu in this thread about a parser for Emacs' Org-Mode format
(not really a quote about Rust, but I found it pretty enjoyable nonetheless)
Yes, this adds to Rust’s “wierdness budget”, but this is doing it for the right reason: discovering a way to solve a problem that many programming languages have, but few have really tackled.
jcsoo on await
syntax (on internals)
Never play drinking games with the rust compiler. It will destroy you and show you how sorry of a developer you are!