Teemu Likonen (HE12026-07-23): > I found that fun part of learning Rust. The compiler forced me to learn > those concepts of ownership and borrowing mutably or immutably and the > compiler is helpful in that. It gives pleasure to know that I the result > it safe and quite good code.
That was my reaction at first, when I tried Rust when people started talking about it. Then I was stuck multiple times because the borrow checker was not smart enough to accept obviously safe operations, like passing distinct parts of the same structure to different functions. And I found that the mindset of the language and its community was not to use `unsafe` in these cases but to gate-keep the substructures using refcounting. In short, I was excited to get a super-C with static checks and metaprogramming, and what I found was a super-Java with some static optimization. A few years later I reimplemented the project in Perl (also an occasion to use Gtk+2 instead of Gtk+3, because Gtk+3 sucks). Add to that the bloated binaries (no dynamic linking, especially no dynamic linking to Rust compnents) and the packaging nightmare (granted, all “«「modern」»” language are a packaging nightmare), I must say I am not very sympathetic to Rust. Regards, -- Nicolas George
