When does it get bad? I've read up to chapter 7 and I haven't seen anything I hate. Have you read it? What did you think?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
When does it get bad? I've read up to chapter 7 and I haven't seen anything I hate. Have you read it?
You don't have enough schizoclorians to perceive why it's bad.
I understand why someone would dismiss it after learning about the community and the shills. Most fan bases are cancer. As a programming language I like the concepts, but the syntax isn't my favorite.
>schizoclorians
kek'd
still the dumbest shit George Lucas injected into the story.
It's fine.
Only nocoders hate it
rust is full of self hating nocoders
Oxymoron
rust is full of troons. and troons hate being born into their gender. Therefore, self hating. the rust community is full of journos and ngos influencing people to learn it because of some inclusivity bullshit. Therefore, nocoders
This is what happens when you base your worldview on nothing more than memes.
This is what happens when I have a non trivial exposure to the rust community and I understand the innerworkings. This is what happens when you have years of experience in the technology field. Your pathetic nugay experience over the past 15 years doesn't amount to anything compared to the 50 years that we have been programming in C. We will continue to program in C for greenfield projects long after you 41%
Heh, it sure is. It sure is.
Why do you keep creating these threads
I don't think I ever created Rust thread on IQfy.
>filtered by rust of all langs
you have to use the language to discover why its bad. Obviously a book will only present you the good sides. Make a simple multithreaded game/database and you will the bad side.
In comparison to other systems languages, Rust is a heaven when it comes to multithreaded stuff.
>you have to use the language to discover why its bad. Obviously a book will only present you the good sides.
That's a fair point
>Make a simple multithreaded game/database and you will the bad side.
The book did mention that one of the benefits is how it simplifies multithreaded programming because of the compiler. Haven't got to actually experiment with it though so I can't say for certain. Would you say it's worse than multithreaded programming in something like C++?
>Would you say it's worse than multithreaded programming in something like C++?
the opposite. that person hates rust for no reason.
c++ lets you write all sorts of completely broken code that is undefined behavior and broken but not allowed by the rust compiler. watch any talk on the pitfalls of c++ and most of the things aren't even possible in rust, multiple points in this talk especially the multi threaded part
it depends on how you design the program. If you already know of a good software architecture and have thoughts how everything fits together then yes Rust can give a lot of guarantees that will avoid the usual problems. However if this is your first time or you are used to c++ stuff you will soon see why people hate the compiler it gets very very annoying to fix shit to satisfy the borrow checker.
People like
obviously don't care about these problems either they never program something complex or like to pretend these problem don't exist. Rust is fine and dandy if you are willing to invest massive amount of time but at the end of the day you just want to move on not rethink the underlying structures over and over again. Once its fixed its usually a solid foundation that will not have a nice day into the foot like in c++ however getting to that point is a slog.
>People like
(You) obviously don't care about these problems either they never program something complex or like to pretend these problem don't exist.
I made a game engine in Rust and didn't had issues with borrow checker. Git gud.
>I made a game engine in Rust
And you get your panties in a bunch when we say you use rust for toy projects
I sure do
Well then don't say stupid things. Calling a toy game engine that only you use is a toy project
post source then we will see how good it is.
I don't think you have the patience to read into or even run the code locally. It's not like it would prove anything anyway, maybe I was in fact struggling with borrow checker on each step and never grasped it despite writing so much Rust code already.
>you will soon see why people hate the compiler it gets very very annoying to fix shit to satisfy the borrow checker.
Good C and C++ programmers have no issues with the borrow checker
C and C++ programmers program in C and C++. They don't use the borrow checker.
instead they reimplement it poorly in their brains and fail to apply it correctly.
the same rules rust forces at compile time are the same "rules" the compilers live by and can be arbitrarily dropped on you with broken shitcode.
also you're using sage wrong dipshit and announcing sage is against the rules.
Aliasing xor mutability is more than C and C++ force on you (unless you use restrict)
sage in the name field is a time-honored (if stupid) tradition
>Aliasing xor mutability is more than C and C++ force on you
not really. it's expected and if you violate it, you're expected to properly hint and use the language features to do it correctly.
It's alright to modify a value while some other reference exists to it, as long as you don't invalidate that reference by e.g. freeing the allocation. Rust is more strict than that and only gives you limited ways to opt out. This restriction is worth it because more finegrained rules are difficult but it's a new one
C, yes. C++, no
After you create your first hello world and it creates 1gb of build files.
Its a commie lang for people afraid of pointers
>commie lang
>mit/apache 2 license
pick one
Its the authoritarian mentality of it
At the risk of sounding moronic, how do you know the structure of everything to even specify?
I get it's not boilerplate, you're making guarantees, but it just seems like even using the standard library means specifying like a dozen things every time?
Is the LSP just amazing or something?
What sort of choices are you thinking of? This is a good question but it's best answered with concrete examples
What do you mean exactly?
Rust has great type deduction so you do not have to specify most of the types and generic arguments at last. Rust do require you to make important overarching design decisions in how will your access patterns look like and such, but these things come with experience. It won't be as flexible as prototyping in a dynamic language of course, but if you have a good idea of what you are doing and you are experienced, it's not difficult to pick right structures and patterns for given task.
>Link the gifski gif encoder to my app
>Only static linking works according to the author so it must be downloaded every time
>It’s a pain in the ass to build and simulator builds with it just would not work no matter what I tried
>It’s 30 MiB in BLOAT and quadrupled the size of my iOS app
If you wrote clean C99 code it would be like 0.5 MiB and be impossible not to compile. I’m hoping Zig becomes the new FotM systems language. They st least make sure there shit is easy to compile and NOT 100x BLOATED TROON homosexualRY
>>Only static linking works according to the author so it must be downloaded every time
I’ll clarify here this is regarding app updates. Usually for popular libraries people will already have the version you use installed and cached somewhere especially if they have an older version of your app.
This thread makes me really confused on whether I should choose C++ or Rust after finishing my first language book. The rigorosity of Rust attracted me, but I see people speaking out loud in defense of C++, I don't if the major of these are the average human behavior of irrationally making excuses to shield their pre-concepted ideas or if they are genuine. I would need a honest guy that worked with both languages do help me decide.
Keep with Rust, it's just on IQfy you get actual schizos defending C and C++ because of a religious culture war they've been fighting since 2014
>since 2014
please tell me its not an allusion to gaymergate anon
Just mess around in both and see for yourself. You won't make you a worse programmer.
A lot of design decisions in Rust are there to not repeat mistakes from C++, and might not be as obvious without a solid understanding of systems programming anyway. In general I would recommend Rust, but it's not an easily approachable language and might not even be as good for use cases as some other languages. But between the two, unless you know that you do need C++, Rust is probably a better option for hobby projects and maybe a job in the future as it continues to catch the wind.
it doesn't. it's basically the every language for virtually every problem I've encountered outside of the most mundane interactive programming needs.
In my experience, writing basic web services in Rust is just a waste of time for no real gain. It's so much faster and easier to just put things together in nodejs or go or something. But as far as systems programming good, it's pretty good.
People hate it because they get emotionally attached to the first language they learned and feel threatened by it having a competitor
Rust is somewhat similar to veganism. Vegetables are healthy, like safe code. Many vegans are completely normal and well-adjusted...
But some vegans are freakish beyond redemption, who will hate you for eating meat, and try to convert you with all their power, and see you as evil incarnate if you do not go vegan. They use terms like "Cnile" and start threads on IQfy in praise of Rust and full of hatred for all other languages.
Militant vegans cannot handle a burger. Our mentally-robust Rusty-friends cannot handle pic related.
https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
?
I am not schizo enough to take a screenshot every month.
Maybe do it once every two years at least? Can't be more effort than spamming it
> Highest Position (since 2011): #17 in Mar 2024
rust bros. we won.
homosexual indotroony schizo btfo.
>tripgay
Rust could have been good, but it has extremely bad syntax. It's even more unreadable than modern C++.
>It's even more unreadable than modern C++.
absolutely not true
We all agree Rust syntax is horrible. Here's a list of the major problems and how to fix them, and then maybe people will actually use it someday.
1. No block expressions. No implicit returns. Use the fricking keyword.
2. Take the colon out of declaration syntax. remove the question mark operator. Give us a real ternary operator.
3. Take the "!" out of macros. They should look exactly like function calls.
4. Take the pipe bullshit out of closures. Use balanced delimiters.
5. Take out the "::" that sometimes appears when using templates. There is no reason for having this.
6. Fix all the keywords that were renamed for no reason: "match" = "switch," "let" = "auto," "()" = "void," and so on.
7. Replace the stupid "=>" operator with real case labels so IDEs can actually highlight them.
8. Make mutability the default. Use explicit const for immutable variables and references.
9. Put the type before the variable, not after.
10. Remove the pointless "fn" keyword. It's redundant.
11. Put template parameters before the associated declaration instead of mixing them in with a bunch of other stuff where it's impossible to read.
12. Change "self" back to "this" and make it implicit.
13. Struct fields should be defined with the same syntax as declaring variables.
14. Remove "impl Bar for Foo." You should be able to see all the interfaces a type inherits from at the declaration site.
15. Remove "impl Foo." Methods should be defined inside the struct body, or declared there and defined at the top level.
16. Make parentheses mandatory in if/while/for statements. Make braces optional.
17. Bring back the three-part for loop syntax. There are things that simply can't be expressed without it.
18. Make lifetimes completely invisible. They're implicit some of the time. Make them implicit all of the time, or just remove them. If the compiler can't make this work without a bunch of arcane symbols the programmer has to type, there is no point even having the feature.