>Why learn on it?
I figure I'd kill two birds with one stone by learning both in lock-step.
2 years ago
Anonymous
implement in a language you know, then reimplement in Rust to learn the different behaviors.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Rust is a contrarian lie. C++ is the proper tool when you need C with object orientation. Java and C# are good too if you don't like pointers.
Hmmm okay maybe I will shelf rust.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Rust is a contrarian lie. C++ is the proper tool when you need C with object orientation. Java and C# are good too if you don't like pointers.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>C++ is the proper tool
This has to be the first time anyone has said that in earnest
2 years ago
Anonymous
There was a time where C++ is the right tool, I think a lot of people in Game Development uses it because of how OOP it is and how much pellet in a shotgun that you can shoot unto your feet.
But for system critical shit, people will probably just go straight into a version of C (probably C99 or older) or straight into the assembly of the current arch.
But nowadays I have to say, rust has begun showing a lot of great quality for sustainable (meaning could last for quite a while) software. The community is very helping, the tooling is great, the learning curve for a lot of library isn't as steep as C++ because of how documentation is littered around the place, and it's runtime performance is definitely not a joke. Also, if you're making something that's above 200 lines of code, you can rest assured that your code has some kind of correctness in it because the compiler demands it to be.
GG Rust.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, I will not use babby Rust. I will use C++.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>let
I aint using a language that makes me beg it to let me use a variable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I thought ‘let’ was more inline with how math proofs say ‘let A be the set of etc. etc.,” when defining variables, if anything it sounds demanding and assertive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i aint using a lang where I have to type out full type names when defining a variable
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah back in like the 90s C++ added `auto` and Rust contrarians can't into C++. I refuse to read Rust code.
2 years ago
Anonymous
auto is fricking ugly as shit would rather type full typenames
let sounds cool and formal
2 years ago
Anonymous
Let is alright but what about `func` and Rust's generally schizophrenic syntax?
2 years ago
Anonymous
"func" is not a keyword in Rust, what do you mean?
Rust's syntax is ok. It's a bit noisy, but that's because it has lots to express.
C++'s syntax is truly schizophrenic, with its trailing return types and minimal difference between structs and classes and its most vexing parse. It really suffers from being bolted onto C.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>func
ye func sounds dogshit good thing rusts uses fn
and having a keyword for defing a function is good it allows for easier look up without lsp and easier parsing
the return value at the start is truly schizophrenic
2 years ago
Anonymous
Having a return value at the start is good form. What's shitty about C/++ is stuff like `void (*f(void));`
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But for system critical shit, people will probably just go straight into a version of C (probably C99 or older) or straight into the assembly of the current arch.
You've never programmed in your life, and it's showing
2 years ago
Anonymous
>C++ is the proper tool when you need C with object orientation.
t. pajeet code monkey
2 years ago
Anonymous
Rust isn't a beginner language.
Start with Python, Javascript or C (C isn't a beginner language as well, but is simple and good enough that you'll be able to do beginner stuff without hitting its shortcomings while still learning about some low-level stuff).
I mean you can, but it will probably get into your way and you won't even learn what you did wrong.
Better to learn them in C for example, and then study Rust's stdlib containers code and see how they implemented it. Even though it uses unsafe, they don't just use raw pointers but still express quite a bit invariants in the type system. But you rather need to understand data structures well first before you attempt to understand that.
>just use the abstraction without learning anything about how it works or why people use it in the first place, goyim
Learning about data structures and algorithms doesn't mean you want to reinvent the wheel, just that you can more accurately choose which ones fit your use case the best, or ever so slightly tweak them if needed.
Rust is definitely the wrong language for learning about data structures. Regular C or C#/Java are good choices. Open any data structure book and you’re going to see box and pointer diagrams which are a design pattern which is considered unsafe by rust’s designers. You’ll spend more time fighting the compiler than learning about data structures. Moreover you don’t need to care about memory safety when you’re learning. Understanding how raw memory is organized and why it isn’t such a good idea to arbitrarily write past the end of a string pointer is a prerequisite to making an informed decision on whether to don the rust latex gimp suit.
Writing low-level data structures in Rust is actually pretty tricky. You need some subtle language knowledge to get it right, triply so if you're making them generic. I love Rust but this is the one area where I'd recommend using C for learning.
The wheel has already been invented.
I mean learning DS&A i'm moronic and type wrong
CAPTCHA: PSY0P
Why learn on it? You're just adding more conceptual complexity with the borrow checker. Personally, I'd "learn" using Java or some such.
>Why learn on it?
I figure I'd kill two birds with one stone by learning both in lock-step.
implement in a language you know, then reimplement in Rust to learn the different behaviors.
Hmmm okay maybe I will shelf rust.
Rust is a contrarian lie. C++ is the proper tool when you need C with object orientation. Java and C# are good too if you don't like pointers.
>C++ is the proper tool
This has to be the first time anyone has said that in earnest
There was a time where C++ is the right tool, I think a lot of people in Game Development uses it because of how OOP it is and how much pellet in a shotgun that you can shoot unto your feet.
But for system critical shit, people will probably just go straight into a version of C (probably C99 or older) or straight into the assembly of the current arch.
But nowadays I have to say, rust has begun showing a lot of great quality for sustainable (meaning could last for quite a while) software. The community is very helping, the tooling is great, the learning curve for a lot of library isn't as steep as C++ because of how documentation is littered around the place, and it's runtime performance is definitely not a joke. Also, if you're making something that's above 200 lines of code, you can rest assured that your code has some kind of correctness in it because the compiler demands it to be.
GG Rust.
No, I will not use babby Rust. I will use C++.
>let
I aint using a language that makes me beg it to let me use a variable.
I thought ‘let’ was more inline with how math proofs say ‘let A be the set of etc. etc.,” when defining variables, if anything it sounds demanding and assertive.
i aint using a lang where I have to type out full type names when defining a variable
Yeah back in like the 90s C++ added `auto` and Rust contrarians can't into C++. I refuse to read Rust code.
auto is fricking ugly as shit would rather type full typenames
let sounds cool and formal
Let is alright but what about `func` and Rust's generally schizophrenic syntax?
"func" is not a keyword in Rust, what do you mean?
Rust's syntax is ok. It's a bit noisy, but that's because it has lots to express.
C++'s syntax is truly schizophrenic, with its trailing return types and minimal difference between structs and classes and its most vexing parse. It really suffers from being bolted onto C.
>func
ye func sounds dogshit good thing rusts uses fn
and having a keyword for defing a function is good it allows for easier look up without lsp and easier parsing
the return value at the start is truly schizophrenic
Having a return value at the start is good form. What's shitty about C/++ is stuff like `void (*f(void));`
>But for system critical shit, people will probably just go straight into a version of C (probably C99 or older) or straight into the assembly of the current arch.
You've never programmed in your life, and it's showing
>C++ is the proper tool when you need C with object orientation.
t. pajeet code monkey
Rust isn't a beginner language.
Start with Python, Javascript or C (C isn't a beginner language as well, but is simple and good enough that you'll be able to do beginner stuff without hitting its shortcomings while still learning about some low-level stuff).
This
Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel OP?
If you're just learning then Rust isn't a language for you.
I mean you can, but it will probably get into your way and you won't even learn what you did wrong.
Better to learn them in C for example, and then study Rust's stdlib containers code and see how they implemented it. Even though it uses unsafe, they don't just use raw pointers but still express quite a bit invariants in the type system. But you rather need to understand data structures well first before you attempt to understand that.
> Talk me out of implementing Data Structures and Algorithms with Rust
>data structures
>in rust
Rust can’t even handle linked lists
I dont care whether you use Rust or take a Sepples footgun and put it against your temple.
How do I put a footgun against my temple if it’s already on my foot, anon?
Blow your foot off first then blow your peabrain out.
Should have stopped at "algorithms." Stop poorly reimplementing things that have been optimized to death by other people already.
>just use the abstraction without learning anything about how it works or why people use it in the first place, goyim
Learning about data structures and algorithms doesn't mean you want to reinvent the wheel, just that you can more accurately choose which ones fit your use case the best, or ever so slightly tweak them if needed.
Rust is definitely the wrong language for learning about data structures. Regular C or C#/Java are good choices. Open any data structure book and you’re going to see box and pointer diagrams which are a design pattern which is considered unsafe by rust’s designers. You’ll spend more time fighting the compiler than learning about data structures. Moreover you don’t need to care about memory safety when you’re learning. Understanding how raw memory is organized and why it isn’t such a good idea to arbitrarily write past the end of a string pointer is a prerequisite to making an informed decision on whether to don the rust latex gimp suit.
Writing low-level data structures in Rust is actually pretty tricky. You need some subtle language knowledge to get it right, triply so if you're making them generic. I love Rust but this is the one area where I'd recommend using C for learning.
You should. Imo, it's always a good idea to implement some basic data structures and algos in whatever new language you're learning.