Well, since we don't live in "movie world", nothing would happen?
We're already used to the US' dumbass leadership making 51st state threats, and since we all know TACO, it would just be more "idiot cries wolf" noise.
There are 4.2M people in Alberta and the separatist movement has struggled to get 300k signatures.
How do you think the actual referendum would go?
Plus a referendum is not a legally binding thing that would unconditionally force separation.
Even if more than 50% voted yes, it would simply require the government to formally explore the possibility of separating. At which point they would conclude, like others already have, that it's not legally possible to separate without changing existing laws (which could also happen but would be a much longer and more complicated road).
If you want a good primer on why it's basically impossible, this video might help:
It wasn't legal for the US to separate from England either. Just hypothetically, say Alberta ultimately decides to separate and proclaims their independence. They stop paying into the federal system and set up their own federal government. Ottawa says they will intervene with military force, but the US protects the separatists.
This is not a likely scenario, but it's not at all impossible either.
5 weeks, even contiguous is not enough to unwind from decades of job induced stress. I took some time off between jobs, and it was a solid 3 months before I noticed major improvements.
I loved working in Haskell for a few years. I wasn't actively looking it, but the opportunity just sort of landed in my lap. It was exciting and mentally stimulating. But the unfortunate fact is, I am easily twice as productive in Rust as I am Haskell, even after 3 years of nothing but Haskell. There are more pitfalls in Haskell that you have to just know how to avoid. It can be very difficult to digest as the language can be borderline write-only at times, depending on the author of the code. The tooling is often married to Nix, which is it's own complex beast. And it feels like language extensions are all over the place. Cabal files are not my favorite. And the compiler errors take some time to get get used to.
Pretty surprising -- I had much the opposite experience.
On our last product, we decided to start switching from Typescript to Rust on the backend because we got tired of crashes. I consider that to be one of the greatest technical mistakes I've made ever, as our productivity slowed massively. I'll just share two time-draining issues that only occur in Rust: (1) Writing higher-order functions (e.g.: a function to open a database connection, do something, and then close it -- yes, I know you can use RAII for this particular example), which is trivial in Haskell and TypeScript and JavaScript and C++ and PHP, turned out to be so impossible in Rust [even after asking Rust-expert friends for help], that I learned to just give up and never try, though it sometimes worked to write a macro instead. (2) It's happened many times that I would attempt a refactoring, spend all day fixing type errors, finally get to the top-level file, get a type error that's actually caused somewhere else by basic parts of the design, and conclude the entire refactoring I had attempted is impossible and need to revert everything.
On top of that, Rust is the only modern language I can name where using a value by its interface instead of its concrete type lies somewhere between advanced and impossible, depending on what exactly you're doing.
I came away concluding that application code (as opposed to systems or library code) should, to a first approximation, never be written in Rust.
I'm not a Rust expert by any means, but I'm surprised to hear this. In my Rust code, doing anything with a database connection is not at all different from, say, Go or TypeScript.
For example, I use the deadpool-postgres crate for database pooling. Getting a connection looks like this:
let conn = self.pool.get().await?;
Because of RAII, you don't need a higher-order function helper, but if you really wanted to make one:
with_conn(|conn| async move {
conn.query("SELECT 1") // Or whatever
}).await
If you know TypeScript, this shouldn't be too difficult to read or write. The gnarliest stuff here is knowing the type signature of the function argument; because of async, it must be AsyncFnOnce, for one, and you need to know that the type that the deadpool crate returns is called Object<Manager> (which doesn't sound like a connection, to be fair). Determining the exact concrete type to match type constraints on is sometimes a chore, but TypeScript is surely no different here!
If you don't know Rust too well, the "move" part will be a little mysterious, to be sure.
Just investigated -- looks like this works now! Yay!
For this family of examples, had been completely stymied by AsyncFnOnce not being released yet. IIRC it had been in the works for several years, was still an experimental feature when I was trying to use it, and I gave up after much frustration at trying to get a version of Rust with experimental features working under devenv (nix).
A subtraction then to my frustrations with Rust -- though I'd still be very wary of doing this, having seen how fragile higher-order functions have been in the past.
That explains it. I think async closures were stabilized a year ago. Before that, you'd have needed to write out the async signature as non-async with futures (that's what async is syntactic sugar for, anyway). Something like:
I appreciate Rust for making affine types mainstream, and having at least the C++ community start caring about security, even if half hearted.
However I share your conclusion, outside scenarios where having automated resource management as the main approach is either technically impossible, or a waste of time trying to change pervasive culture, I don't see much need for Rust.
In fact those that write comments about wanting a Rust but without borrow checker, the answer already exists.
I think Rust would be fine for application code if it kept the borrow checker, but had greater allowance for dynamically-sized variables, or even garbage collection. The reason calling things through an interface is so tough in Rust is because doing so requires having a pointer to a value of unknown size, which involves either heap allocation or alloca(), neither of which are very happy in Rust. Many of the other things I complained about are also downstream of this decision. Affine types are useful both in high-level state management as well as in low-level memory management. But it's Rust's focus on static memory layout that really cements it as a low-level systems language, not its inclusion of borrowing.
Way back as an undergrad in 2011, I contributed to Plaid, a JVM language whose main feature is based on affine and linear types. I'm one of the very few people in the world who knew what borrowing is before Rust had it. So I know first-hand that borrow-checking is perfectly compatible with garbage collection.
Exactly, and that is why after Rust's break into mainstream, several garbage collected languages are trying to mix advanced type systems with their approach to garbage collection (GC, RC, a mix of both, whatever).
This is also not strange for those in the Rust community with type systems experience, hence the Roadmap 2026 proposals for a more ergonomic experience.
Thus we have Linear Haskell, Swift 6 ownership, D ownership, Koka, Hylo, Chapel, OxCaml, Scala Capabilities, Ada/SPARK proofs, Idris, F*, Dafny,....
Interesting. But when I search `"roadmap 2026" rust`, I only get results for the video game.
Am familiar with Linear Haskell (and actually went on a walk through Tokyo with one of the authors just a few months ago). IIRC: still no resources allocated to add the things that would actually make it useful. Had not been aware of most of those, except the dependently-typed ones. Cool to know about the others. Yay linear types becoming known.
You seem interesting, and I'm curious about your background now. All I can find so far is that you're from Europe and used to lead C++ in some major corporation.
I wish, I got the luck to do some C++ at CERN and Nokia Networks, but nothing out of the ordinary.
Just happen to be a nerd with interests across systems programming, languages, graphics, that rather reads books and papers than watching dull TV shows.
Day job is boring enterprise consulting across the usual stacks you might imagine.
Have found in that roadmap things that would help me personally like making async functions dyn-compatible. Have not found the deeper stuff I thought you were hinting at.
Last year, I wanted to use the 5- line Result.flatten function, abs then found it had been stuck in experimental....for 5 years. That left me with no confidence of the language's dev velocity.
(1) Higher order functions are pretty much the same as all the other languages you mentioned, using closure syntax? What was the problem you ran into?
(2) In such situations the compiler (type system or borrow checker) is telling you that what you wanted to do has hidden bugs, and therefore refuses to compile. Usually that's a good thing.
(1) Oh sure, the syntax is easy. Getting it to borrow-check is somewhere between insane and impossible. As I said, I've had friends who are actual Rust experts give up trying.
(2) No, it stems from a compiler limitation (imposed in large part by the need for static memory layout), not because there's anything intrinsically buggy about doing this.
(3) Look up "dyn-compatibility", for the largest, but not the only, problem with doing this.
It seems to be a common reflex of Rust advocates that, whenever an issue with using the language is asked about, the response is "That's just a garbage-collected code pattern" followed by "and therefore you shouldn't want it." It's happened multiple times in this thread. [Edit: and both the times I was thinking of were from you, so need to weaken that conclusion]
Aside from having vibes of "I've chosen to get hit weekly in the face with a baseball bat, but have learned to like it, and so should you" it's also seldom true.
All three of these examples are also quite easy to do with C and C++. It's not about garbage collection.
"It's possible to write <lang-X> in <lang-Y>" is a common trope, but "It's possible to write <lang-X> in Rust" is painful and borderline impossible in my experience. I don't mean this as a defense of rust, I just think it's why the learning curve is so harsh.
Rust makes you be explicit about memory management. I guarantee you if you threw everything into a box inside an Arc, your copy closures would have still worked just fine and your Haskell idiom would translate cleanly. Only now everything is heap allocated and reference counted. Before LLMs took over the reins, this was the hallmark of beginner rust code because it WOULD work, just with unnecessary allocations and copying and pointer dereferencing.
Rust makes the tradeoffs explicit, and Rust programmers tend to obsess over minimizing those tradeoffs to get abstractions that are zero-cost. So doing it “the rust way” is often very complicated and tricky to get right while satisfying the borrow checker and type system, but once found is lean, fast, clean, and safe.
Oy. It is also a common experience that, when I struggle in Rust to use a pattern that's common in nearly every other language or find another way to achieve the same goal, people who know of my Haskell background call it a "Haskell pattern," and thereby avoid facing the suggestion that their favorite language is missing some pretty basic affordances.
No, boxing everything does not magically make things more dyn-compatible. It will not magically solve the issue that tokio does a whole-program transformation that does its most restrictive checking only after all local checks have been resolved. It will not magically allow more reuse between datatypes. It will solve none of the problems I encountered... because if beginner-Rust could solve any of these problems, then they would have ceased to be problems for me by the time I became intermediate.
> Rust programmers tend to obsess over minimizing those tradeoffs to get abstractions that are zero-cost. So doing it “the rust way” is often very complicated and tricky to get right while satisfying the borrow checker and type system, but once found is lean, fast, clean, and safe.
You and I must be using very different definitions of "lean." For me, "complicated" and "lean" do not go together
I am sorry that Rust isn't for you. There is beauty in a systems programming language, but you have to be willing to think as a systems programmer. That's not for everybody.
This is getting pretty funny. In this branch of the thread alone, I've seen the defenses of: (1) "Rust is fine, you're just expecting the affordances of a GC language." (2) "Rust is fine, you're just expecting the affordances of Haskell," and now (3) "Rust is fine, you're just not used to systems programming"
It's okay if your language has problems (I have plenty of criticisms of my favorite languages), but I find it odd and concerning how frequently I've seen Rust programmers try to deflect instead of engaging in criticism.
I actually have a huge systems programming background and identify as a systems programmer. C and C++ by and large do not have the problems I've written about. These things are Rust problems, not systems problems.
Maybe it depends on the application, but web servers are effortless with something like axum. Libraries can do a lot of heavy lifting to expose straightforward coding patterns. Never had any problems like you desribed with database connections and such. In rust with db pools things just work and get closed on drop etc. I would never even consider making a higher order function for that.
Only other language that I think gets close to rust ergonomics is Kotlin, but it suffers from having too many possibilities for abstractions.
That's pretty interesting. I was thinking about starting a new pet project and was considering doing it in Rust to learn as I never tried anything with it and after some small pocs I had the feeling it was too verbose to my taste, but wasn't sure it was just me and/or my lack of experience with Rust.
Still, wonder if it's still worth it to give a shot considering other positive elements of the language.
Verbosity aside, whether or not Rust is a good fit depends on what you are doing. The language design is broadly optimized for low-level application code, like command-line utilities. If that is the use case then you are likely to have a good experience.
For high-performance and high-reliability systems code, Rust is much more of a mixed bag. In a systems context it lacks the ability to easily and ergonomically express idiomatic constructs important for safety and performance that are trivial to express in e.g. C++. When you run into these cases it can get pretty ugly.
Most people don't write this kind of systems code. What most people call "systems code" is really more like low-level applications code, where Rust excels. It is software like highly-optimized kernel-bypass database engines and similar where the limitations start to show.
It’s worth learning, in my opinion, but I’ve been writing it professionally for the better part of a decade, so my opinion may be a bit skewed.
It’s my favorite language to write, and it gets much easier over time. As a first approximation, if you’re doing something and it feels insanely difficult like the GP is talking about, try to think of a different way to do it rather than fighting it. There’s usually a way to do almost anything, but it’s more pleasant to lean into the grooves the language pushes you towards.
Rust is definitely very verbose. I think it's a fine choice -- probably even the best choice -- if you're doing systems code or if performance is your most important feature. If not, I would pass.
Some say verbose, some say explicit. I had the complete opposite reaction to Rust than this other person, and I don’t think I’m particularly smart so I don’t think it’s purely a matter of intelligence. Even asynchronous rust is pretty easy once you get the hang of it.
That is a very unusual Rust experience. I find "application code" very pleasant to write in Rust. Of course there are things that aren't as ergonomic in Rust as in other languages (e.g. callbacks) but that's true of pretty much any language.
I have heard this reaction from others before. One of the Rust expert friends I consulted with told me "I'm not convinced you're not trying to write Haskell-style code in Rust;" I told him the patterns I was struggling with were both trivial and common in Java.
The things I found quite difficult or impossible in Rust were to me pretty basic patterns for modularity and removing duplication that it's really shocking that these complaints are not more common.
I currently have but two hypotheses for why.
First, the second problem I mentioned only comes from using tokio, which causes your top-level program to secretly be using a defunctionalized continuation data type, derived from where exactly in other files you put your await's, that might not be Send. If you're not using tokio, you won't experience that issue.
Second...I was kinda told to just give up on deduplication and have lots of copy+pasted code. This raises the very uncomfortable hypothesis that Rust afficionados are some combination of people who came to Rust early and never learned traditional software design and don't know what they're missing, and people who were raised on traditional good software engineering but then got hit with Rust's metaphorical baseball bat of lack-of-modularity over and over until they got used to being hit with a baseball bat as a normal pain of life.
I don't like either of these explanations (esp. with tokio seeming quite dominant), so I'm awaiting an explanation that makes more sense. https://xkcd.com/3210/
> Rust afficionados are some combination of people who came to Rust early and never learned traditional software design and don't know what they're missing
This is definitely not the case and is unnecessarily insulting.
The truth is that some things are harder in Rust but a) often those things are best avoided anyway (e.g. callbacks), and b) it's worth the trade-off because of the other good things it allows.
Surely as a Haskell user of all things you must understand that sometimes making things harder is worth the trade-off. Yeay everything is pure! Great for many reasons. Now how do I add logging to this deeply nested function?
I know that it's insulting! And it doesn't make sense, because I generally think Rust programmers are smart people. But right now, it's the only explanation I've got, so it is alas necessarily insulting. So please, please, please give me a better explanation that actually makes sense.
> The truth is that some things are harder in Rust but a) often those things are best avoided anyway (e.g. callbacks), and b) it's worth the trade-off because of the other good things it allows.
This sounds like the seeds of a better explanation, but it needs a lot more to actually suffice. E.g.: why are callbacks best avoided anyway, when they're virtually required for a large number of important programming patterns? (In more technical language: they're effectively the only way to eliminate duplication in non-leaf-expressions. In even more technical language: they're the way to do second-order anti-unification.)
> Surely as a Haskell user of all things you must understand that sometimes making things harder is worth the trade-off. Yeay everything is pure! Great for many reasons. Now how do I add logging to this deeply nested function?
And this is a great illustration of the difference. First, you will seldom find Haskell programmers trying to argue that, actually, things like deeply-nested logging that everyone wants are actually "best avoided anyway." Second, you'll actually get a solution if you ask about them -- in this case, to either use MTL-style, to use a fixed alias for your monad stack, or that unsafePerformIO isn't actually that bad.
BTW, similar to my unpleasant conclusion for Rust above, I have another unpleasant conclusion for Haskell: Haskell is incredible for medium-sized programs, but it has its own missing modularity features that make it non-ideal for large programs (e.g.: >50k lines). But this is a much smaller problem than it sounds because Haskell is so compact that, while many projects can be huge, very few individual codebases will need to approach that size.
Look up "callback hell". Basically they encourage spaghetti.
> you'll actually get a solution if you ask about them
You got solutions to your problems didn't you? Macros are a perfectly reasonable thing to use in Rust, even if they are best avoided where possible. Exactly like unsafePerformIO.
If you were expecting Rust to work perfectly in every situation... well it doesn't. GUI programming in particular is still awkward, and async Rust has more footguns than anyone is happy with.
Despite that it's still probably the best language we have for a surprisingly large range of domains.
> Look up "callback hell". Basically they encourage spaghetti.
Ah. I think you're confusing the general idea of a callback with one particular style of use. "callback hell" refers to the deep indentation that occurs when trying to program in monadic style in languages without syntactic support for monads. It was mostly solved by adding async/await syntax, aka syntactic support for the continuation monad. "Callback hell" is not spaghetti in any deep sense, merely syntactically cumbersome.
But a "callback" is a more general term, sometimes a synonym for "function parameter," sometimes for more narrow kinds of function parameter (e.g.: void function, invokable once). Many people will refer to the function argument of the `map` function as a callback, but no-one would refer to that as "callback hell."
And when I did, I largely got it by figuring stuff out myself, while being told by multiple Rust experts that I either shouldn't care about the verbosity and lack of modularity, or that if I have a problem like "using the interface instead of the implementation" it must be because I'm a Haskeller.
Well, my ultimate solution was to start working on a new product, and to not use any Rust, except for some performance-heavy libraries. With the first product, the market had changed too much by the time we were ready for prime-time, and I'd put somewhere between 25% and 70% of the reason for that delay on our choice to start building new parts of the backend in Rust.
> Macros are a perfectly reasonable thing to use in Rust, even if they are best avoided where possible. Exactly like unsafePerformIO.
Good comparison!
> Despite that it's still probably the best language we have for a surprisingly large range of domains.
I agree with this. I just don't agree that that list of domains has a very large intersection with the set of applications.
The most confusing thing that can happen with something like tokio is the failure-at-distance you can get from writing a non-Send future somewhere in the depths of a call stack and then having to figure out why your top-level spawn isn’t working. There’s a non-default lint I highly recommend turning on when working with tokio: clippy::future_not_send. Forces all your futures to be Send, unless you opt out, which really helps keep the reasoning local when you run into errors.
FWIW I write primarily rust, and I do not agree with the advice given in your second point, so I’d take it with a grain of salt were I you.
> difficult or impossible in Rust were to me pretty basic patterns for modularity
Many things are plainly not permitted, either because the borrow-checker isn't clever enough, or the pattern is unsafe (without garbage collection and so on).
Many functional/Haskell patterns simply can not be translated directly to Rust.
That "and so on" is doing a lot of work. You may accept rejecting garbage collection as a reasonable trade-off, but the bulk of the cost is coming from a much more aggressive tradeoff Rust is making with is at odds with the goals of most application code.
A deeply-baked assumption of Rust is that your memory layout is static. Dynamic memory layout is perfectly compatible with manual memory management, but Rust does not readily support it because of its demands for static memory layout.
A very easy place to see this is the difference in decorator types between Rust and other languages like Java. Java's legacy File/reader API has you write things like `new PrintWriter(new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter("foo.txt")))`, where each layer adds some functionality to the base layer. The resulting value has principal type `PrintWriter` and can be used through the `Writer` interface.
The equivalent code in Rust would give you a value of type `PrintWriter<BufferedWriter<FileWriter>>` which can only be passed to functions that expect exactly that type and not, say, a `PrintWriter<BufferedWriter<StringStream>>`. You would solve this by using a template function that takes a `T where T: Writer` parameter and gets compiled separately for every use-site, thus contributing to Rust's infamous slow build times.
It would be perfectly sane, and desirable for application code, to be able to pass around a PrintWriter value as an owned pointer to a PrintWriter struct which contains an owned pointer to a BufferedWriter struct which contains an owned pointer to a FileWriter struct. You could even have each pointer actually be to a Writer value of unknown size, and thus recover modularity.
In Rust, there is sometimes a painful and very fragile way to do this: have each writer type contain a Box<&dyn Writer>, effectively the same as the Java solution above. This works, except that, if one day you want to add a method to the Writer trait that breaks dyn-compatibility, then you will no longer be able to do this, and will need to rewrite all code that uses this type.
You can usually manage dyn compatibility issues in my experience by writing a base trait that is not dyn compatible and then an Ext trait that is, which is auto implemented for all implementers of the base trait. You see this pattern all over the place, including with several of the buffer traits you mentioned.
Mostly, this works out well enough: dyn compatibility pretty much just insists your methods can in fact work with just a reference to an unknown variant of the type.
Good suggestion. I think started doing that kind of thing towards the end of my days with Rust. It's been close to a year now, and don't remember how well it worked out.
Some people ask me why I do not use Rust as opposed to C++ if it is already safer and more modern.
But I see the forums (and I also trued some toy stuff at times) plagued with rigidity problems that in C++ have obvious solutions.
For example, I am not going to fight a borrow-checker all the stack up to get a 0.0005% perf improvement, if sny, when I can use smart pointers.
I am not going to use Result everywhere when I can throw an exception and get done with it instead of refactoring all the stack up for the intermediate return types (though I use expected and optional and like them, but it is a choice depending on what I am doing).
I am not going to elaborate safe interfaces for my arrays of data I need to send to a GPU: there is no vslue in it and I can get it wrong snyway, it os ceremony. I assume this kind of code is unsafe by nature.
I find C++ just more flexible. Yes, it has warts, but I use all warnings as errors, clang tidy and have a lot of flexibility. I use values to avoid any trace of dangling and when it is going to get bad, I can, most of the time, switch to smart pointers.
I really do not get why someone would use Rust except for very niche cases like absolutely no memory unsafety (but this is not free either, as some reports show: you need to really be careful about reviewing unsafe if your domain is unsafe by nature or uses bindings to keep Rust invariants or you write only safe code, in whcih case, if memory safety is critical, it does give you something).
But I do not see Rust good for writing general application code. At least not compared to well-written C++ nowadays.
“I’m not going to use Rust because I don’t like it” seems like what you’re saying, which is totally fine. Plenty of people, myself included, manage to write and enjoy writing general application code in Rust. You’re allowed to not get it, just like I’m allowed to dislike writing C++.
No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying there are contexts where you do not get value out of it and you can potentially decrease your productivity because it is more rigid. You have examples above if you want to read through.
In no way I am saying it is useless. I just see niche uses for it compared to alternatives.
I read most of your comment as phrasing the things that make rust unique as being additional burdens relative to what you would prefer, which is fair, but often they are what I appreciate about the language. Explicit result types are a great example.
Rigidity is a trade off: it can make initial development slower but refactors significantly easier, just as an example.
I don’t think any of your examples show it to be niche. It operates well in most of the space where C++ is a good option, and a bit beyond that (embedded, firmware, but also higher level things where you want performance but don’t want to worry about memory safety).
> but also higher level things where you want performance but don’t want to worry about memory safety).
Well, at the cost of having a straight jacket. Result without option for exception handling is an example. You need to refactor all the way up if you notice that suddenly when refactoring you needed a Result bc a new error appears that could not happen before or you need to preventively spam Result everywhere since the start. You need to handle those all the stack up. The borrow checker is also rigid. I do know why it exists. I understand its value. I am just talking about the toll it imposes while coding, and wondering if it is a good default (I think most of the time it is not, but when you need it, it is invaluable, however these cases are a minority).
Another insight is that when you really go low-level, most of the time you are working with unsafe interfaces probably. At that time, you are using unsafe and now you have to satisfy Rust's borrow checker. How? By hand. So you lost part of the value proposition.
Can you recover it? Yes. How? By reviewing that code. But if I have to review that code, what is better from choosing a language (in this situation I mean, there are situations where Rust is the better choice) where I can understand the invariants in unsafe code better and anyway I have linters and a lot of established guidelines that are not difficult to follow? And by not difficult to follow I mean they are embedded in tooling like clang-tidy, not that I can follow because I know a lot.
So for me it is not so obvious at all, especially in the presence of quite a few unsafe blocks. If you want it safe, at that time, you are starting to compete with other unsafe languages: you need human review anyways... if there is tooling in Rust for unsafe blocks (I can imagine there could be something), that improves things competitively for Rust in unsafe blocks. But if you need careful review, you are stuck again in the non-magical real world: things are safe if you checked absolutely everything.
> Rigidity is a trade off: it can make initial development slower but refactors significantly easier, just as an example.
That is certainly true. It is also true that in areas where you put this extra effort and quickly refactor, it makes things more difficult.
Refactoring, if you mix it with unsafe, needs a much more strict review than just pretending things are safe because you refactored and put things behind an unsafe interface and present it as safe.
I am not convinced at all this is what you need in most scenarios. The productivity impact is relatively high IMHO.
OTOH, if I really want correctness (real correctness!) but not absolute full speed, I think I can reach to Ocaml (very practical) or Haskell (this one is also a bit too rigid actually sometimes).
So I am left in a situation where Rust just seems to be appealing for places where the most absolute memory safety is needed. But memory safety is still a composed characteristic of a running program: you have to take into account unsafe interfaces, bindings, etc.
So the only way to get real safety is anyways to review everything (if that is what you really want to deliver), probably proving your code, which anyway requires human intervention. Did we ever (even if less often) see crashes for invariant violations in code advertised as safe in Rust? Certainly yes. I acknowledge it is usually an improvement, but still not a guarantee.
So if it is not a guarantee and I can reach other tools where anyway the guarantee is there through GC or other mechanisms and where it is not I am equal to Rust, then, why bother?
Probably the only place where I see Rust appealing is where you need both max. performance and absolute memory safety (but you will still need the kind of reviews I mentioned if you spam unsafe and interact with bindings anyway). Those are niche cases, not the norm.
I see like a suboptimal choice to write much of the application code in Rust, even when you need speed, compared to C++. C++ has very good tools for compile-time programming, expression templates, good warnings and linters, a big ecosystem and it is way more voluble (exceptions and results can be used, invariants in unsafe code are easier to follow since a borrow checker does not need to be satisfied "by hand").
So I am not sure at all Rust is the reply for a more or less mainstream general-purpose application language.
There is no magic bullet here, but I do know that when coding in Rust, the productivity toll I am paying is not negligible and I can reach for tools and techniques that make me very close or equal to that productivity.
*`dyn Writer`. `impl Writer` can only be used in function parameters.
This was one of the example approaches I gave. This works...at first. The problem is that, if you want to add a new function to the Writer trait which makes Writer no longer dyn-compatible, such as, say, any async function, then you can no longer write `Box<dyn Writer>` and need to rewrite all code that uses it.
(although you can dig under the hood and specify a pinned-down Future type, covering one kind of awfulness with another)
> Rust afficionados are some combination of people who came to Rust early and never learned traditional software design and don't know what they're missing, and people who were raised on traditional good software engineering but then got hit with Rust's metaphorical baseball bat of lack-of-modularity over and over until they got used to being hit with a baseball bat as a normal pain of life.
Oh please. I came to Rust late, after using plenty of other languages. I have never had a problem with “modularity”. You express surprise that these issues haven’t been talked about more, well the null hypothesis is that you are just not very good at Rust and it hasn’t clicked for you - that’s fine, I doubt I would be very good at Haskell. But don’t insult us, and don’t assume your experience is de facto everyone’s and we’re just in denial. It’s incredibly arrogant.
Please respect the fact that I do not understand how one can like Rust without giving up caring about modularity.
I have pretty good reason for thinking this is a possibility. Directly, because the Rust experts I asked for help did in fact advocate giving up modularity. Indirectly, in that I've seen something similar but much stronger in a different language. That culminated in a conversation with several of the creators of that language, in which they argued their language was great for generic programming...while revealing some pretty basic holes in their understanding of generic programming (while calling me a "Haskell weenie," among other abuse). I am very confident in my conclusion about this other language community and not interested in getting into the details of this event. I am just sharing where I'm coming from, in not immediately dismissing this idea as too absurd to consider even when I have no other hypothesis.
I acknowledge that you feel personally insulted by me having a hypothesis that requires a large group of people behave in ways I consider strange. I have evidence for that hypothesis, and have been unable to find a better one. I hope you can see how the comment I am responding to crosses an extra line and is directly personally insulting.
I would very much like to come away from this discussion no longer believing that Rust programminh is at odds with modularity. I have shared some fairly basic and detailed criticisms, the ones I still remember after a year out of the language. Perhaps your can play a role in offering solutions to them -- or admit that these are indeed problems your hadn't noticed before or had gotten used to
This sounds good in theory, but it means Beagle needs to understand how to parse every language, and keep up with how they evolve. This sounds like a ton of work and a regression could be a disaster. It'll be interesting to see how this progresses though.
IMO this really isn’t a huge problem for this project specifically, since that part is outsourced to tree-sitter which has a lot of effort behind it to begin with.
I think this project is incredibly cool as a line of research / thought but my general experience in trying to provide human interfaces using abstractions over source code suggests that most people in general and programmers especially are better at reasoning in the source code space. Of course, beagle can generate into the source code space at each user interaction point, but at that point, why not do the opposite thing, which is what we already do with language servers and AST driven (semantic) merge and diff tools?
It's also just one more facet. The problem already exists for anything else that we already have, like formatters, linters, syntax highlighters, language servers... And it's also not an exclusive choice. If you want to use a dumb editor, there's nothing preventing that. All of the machinery to go back and forth to text exists. Not really a huge departure.
I find Mergiraf pretty pleasant to use and frequently pretty helpful as a time-saver. Handles TOML and Rust for me, and I have way fewer manual interventions, especially after supplementing it with rustfmt rules to not do a bunch of merged use statements in one go. Easy to configure as a jujutsu tool as well.
Hard imagining well designed web app bottlenecked by server-side processing that is not offloaded to database, or done via bindings to libraries written in compiled languages.
I would first blame the programmers, the design and lack of specialty offloading before blaming any programming language. Well designed web calls scale nearly linearly with usage and usually poor design or programming is the source of slowness. You can always trade language complexity for speed but assuming it is the cause of all perceived slowness is a poor man's view.
It is the same story every time again, first it was java, which has so many large scale projects most people won't even know it's running things they use, now it's apparently python who is to blame for all slowness on the web. When the next JIT or scripted language comes along which is not someone's favourite pet that will get the blame.
Python is slow, though, and so was java compared to other compiled languages of its time. Sure, it might not matter much if you're mostly doing database calls. If you're not, though, then yes, it's the languages fault if your app is slow. You can try to make it faster, but it's gonna be marginal gains. Or, you could just switch to another language and get a 100x speedup for free.
I also denounce the notion that trading language complexity for slowness is the case. Python is already complex, and there's some language and frameworks that are actually quite a bit easier to use for web backends. Like java, or dotnet. It just makes no sense to use python for this usecase, even if you ignore the slowness.
But that's not completely true, there is one very good reason to use python. Your devs know it. But, that doesnt say anything about the language itself.
Is this not a discussion about a web application? Order of magnitude matters. If Python is slower than Rust by 2 orders, but faster than IO by another 2 orders, are you not haggling just to shave off a few dimes on your 100 dollar bill?
You say it hasn't saved you any time because you're doing more work now - e.g. documentation. I would say that's being pedantic, but I guess the expectations shift with it, so in practice, you can't just maintain your old output level and reclaim the saved time.
I haven't seen our roadmap accelerate because of AI. I'm sure, given time, having the P2s like documentation and prototyping in place will yield dividends. But I still can't imagine even doubling our rate of progress.
I am in an area that is bottlenecked on many things besides writing the code. Testing requires physical devices and realtime execution. So having the code 10x faster is little difference when the other processes take most of the time.
Having a family solves this issue nicely. I have a wife and five kids, and none of us are lonely because we have each other. It's one of the choices I made in life that I am most grateful for.
There's also a 50% chance he will not have that company at some point in his life, and will become part of the loneliness epidemic, which for some reason he's not taking into account.
reply