Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have been bitten by the lack of a type checker.

I have been bitten by inexplicit casts.

I have been bitten by segfaults.

I have been bitten by poor/no tests.

I have been bitten by mutable containers.

In every case, more constraints and more explicitness have liberated portions of my cognitive load. I've ended up with fewer bugs, more flexibility to play, reduced ramp-up time for new devs, increased speed of iteration. Why would this trend, to add constraints and explicitness, not continue to be beneficial?

P.S. You haven't been bitten by unsafe code, yet, because the people that write Rust, are still builders of the language. It is still in the early adopter stage. Think about Java, which is now predominantly written by users of the language, imagine that for Rust. The teams currently working with Rust, chose to do so as an experiment. They don't have to get a feature out tomorrow, but that will come. Similarly, there isn't "legacy Rust", yet (except in the compiler - which is fine because it is literally maintained by the experts). Is it really worth waiting for crappy code to get written, then re-written, then forgotten and finally broken, and to relive our mistakes, before we fix a predictable problem?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: