• DreamButt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Seriously what’s up with lemmy and taking the most disingenuous interpretation of someone’s words

    The article literally covered how rust is terrible for iteration and refactoring. Which are corner stones to building software in a small business. Which is where I’ve worked for the last six years. Which is also my personal favorite way to write code.

    Y’all don’t have to start a damn argument every time someone disagrees with you

    • TechNom (nobody)@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is everyone shilling someone else’s personal opinion as if it is a fact. I use Rust. I have no difficulty iterating or refactoring (did that just now). Granted, you are under no obligation to take my word. But why would someone’s blog post be more authoritative than my own experience?

      • DreamButt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m glad you enjoy it. If you find the blog to not fit within your world experience no one is saying you need to take it otherwise. However the author’s take did resonate with me

        The “problem” (as you put it) is that people get emotionally invested in their language of choice. Instead of just accepting that there will always be as many languages (and styles of language) as there are types of people

        Rust is great! I’m glad people like it. But for me it will always be painful and that slows me down. A slow developer is a hungry developer

        People can like different things y’all

        • robinm@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can totally understand the iterating speed due to higher cognitive load of a statically typed language, and non instant compilation.

          However I am very surprised about your refactoring experience. For me Rust is at least in a league of its own. In python/js I am terrified that I could break some unknown parts of my code whenever I touch anything. In C++ I fear that I just broke an invariants and made something UB. In all those languages, I expect regressions when I’m refactoring. But in Rust, even for large scale architecture changes if it compiles I’m quite certain that it’s going to be easy to validate and often works the first try. What point points do you enconter that make your experience sub-optimal ?

      • Anders429@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m right there with you. I’ve been using Rust for years. If anything, Rust has increased my ability to iterate and refactor.

    • GeniusIsme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with your sentiment about users sometimes are disingenuous with their fanboyism. But trying to pretend article is saying rust is terrible for refactoring is not a fair argument either. Some library grade code may require more attention, yes. But in most cases it means you would need to do many changes in other languages too, but you’ll discover it in production.

      • DreamButt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Y’all are taking my hyperbole a bit literal. I’m sure rust is fine. The article had brought up that iteration and flexibility are the weak points. This resonates with my personal experience. That was my entire point from the beginning. I don’t like rust, I will never like rust. I’m glad y’all like rust. There is no “argument” here. It’s just opinion

        The only thing I have issue with is people pretending I’m somehow a crazy person for not liking their favorite toy