Rust enables belligerent refactoring – making dramatic changes and then working with the compiler to bring the project back to a working state.
Can this be the quote of the week, or do we run into weird copyright stuff?
xkcd is under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5, so I assume the question would be whether TWIR wants to incorporate NC-licensed content.
Rust was built by a secret society of Haskell developers to teach programmers how to use monads.
We could absolutely link to it, and we could quote the text (since it's not like any of the other quotes are licensed under an Open Source license), but I don't think we could embed the image without license issues.
I'd propose linking it separately, and not making it the quote of the week.
"I have to say contributing to Rust way less scary than I expected with all the people answering questions"
This forum is licensed under the CC-BY-NC-SA.
From a conversation started by a new user learning Rust for the first time.
I appreciate this summary of Rust's (de facto) ideology:
About heap allocation.
‘My biggest compliment to Rust is that it’s boring, and this is an amazing compliment.’
Chris Dickinson, engineer at npm.
-- turbinerneiter on Hacker News
Perhaps one solution would be to quote that alt-text and just have a link to the image?
Pretty long quote from u/0xdeadf001short version:
The borrow checker is like the Shaolin kung fu master [...]
Rust's beauty lies in the countless decisions made by the development community that constantly make you feel like you can have ten cakes and eat all of them too.
-- Jake McGinty et al on the tonari blog
References are a sharp tool and there are roughly three different approaches to sharp tools.
- Don't give programmers sharp tools. They may make mistakes and cut their fingers off. This is the Java/Python/Perl/Ruby/PHP... approach.
- Give programmers all the sharp tools they want. They are professionals and if they cut their fingers off it's their own fault. This is the C/C++ approach.
- Give programmers sharp tools, but put guards on them so they can't accidentally cut their fingers off. This is Rust's approach.
Lifetime annotations are a safety guard on references. Rust's references have no sychronization and no reference counting -- that's what makes them sharp. References in category-1 languages (which typically do have synchronization and reference counting) are "blunted": they're not really quite as effective as category-2 and -3 references, but they don't cut you, and they still work; they might just slow you down a bit.
So, frankly, I like lifetime annotations because they prevent me from cutting my fingers off.
Rust is like a futuristic laser gun with an almost AI-like foot detector that turns the safety on when it recognises your foot
Ownership in Rust is entirely a type system fiction.