I think this article is spot on. A lot of people I know were turned off from Rust because the compiler was so much stricter than what they were used to, which tends to frustrate experienced devs quickly, in my experience. But it's not that the compiler is overly strict; the errors it catches would almost always become problems later. It's just that reducing the number of compile-time errors doesn't feel like progress as much as reducing the number of run-tine errors, because you haven't actually run the program successfully.

Once you use Rust for a long time, you adapt to the compiler and can get things to compile much quicker. That's where the satisfying part of programming in Rust comes. You get to where you write code and it just works, first try.

[–] GuybrushThreepwo0d@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

You get to where you write code and it just works, first try.

Eh, I write plenty of Rust code that doesn't work. But at least I haven't had a segfault in a while

[–] GuybrushThreepwo0d@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

You get to where you write code and it just works, first try.

Eh, I write plenty of Rust code that doesn't work. But at least I haven't had a segfault in a while

[–] open_world@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think Rust ends up front-loading so many of the problems/frustrations you'd end up having, at the benefit of having much better, safer, and performant code in the long run.