Rustfags convince me why I should start learning rust

Rustfags convince me why I should start learning rust

Attached: 1521390699602.png (1200x1200, 56K)

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?utf8=✓&q=madoka&type=
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Former rustfag.

You shouldn't.

Current rustfag.

You should.

To impress your boyfriend.

Future rustfag.

You should've.

Creator rustfag

you should i guess

Bored potential rustfag

Why not?

Seasonal rustfag.

I honestly don't know. Rust makes C++ language look like child's play. C++ ecosystem makes Rust look child's play.

Believe you build real world systems as C++ programmer and feel so intelligent as Haskell Unemployed.

>03/28/18(Wed)11:32:36 No.65286886
upvoted

Attached: 1509929084515.jpg (662x602, 212K)

> be C++ programmer
> have crippling autism
> get sick of introducing heisenbugs that you spend days tracking down
> use -Wall -Wextra -Weverythingunderthesun
> religiously fix all warnings
> use cppcheck, religiously apply all suggestions

> wow, Rust has all this built in, and rapes you if you don't comply
> Now this is the language for me

Attached: 1486811229130.png (492x419, 308K)

I can't tell if this post is ironic or not.

Downvoted

Attached: 1522046714482.jpg (662x602, 104K)

There is no definite reason for learning any programming language.
Rust is great if you are already experienced in various languages, especially C++14 and some functional programming, so you can understand full potential of Rust. It also can make you either realize how shitty and insecure your code was or you will hate borrow checks because it slaps your face every time you try to get shared mutual reference.
It's worth learning, but it's not as important as learning language that will give you a job.
I use Rust everywhere I would use C++ or C.

I don't see anything wrong with his post. It's pretty much same thing for me.

If you have time learn it, or any new language. It will make you a better programmer. If you're strictly looking for a lanuage to earn money, then no.

Convince yourself, faggot

Attached: 1491161071324.gif (785x757, 824K)

Attached: 1434249202232.png (2048x1024, 26K)

Because Ada is probably too much for you.

There are only two types of programming languages.
The type people complain about (see this entire thread) and the ones nobody uses.
Rust is bretty gud and you should learn it if you want, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Future rustfag.

You shouldn't.

These dubs don't lie.

Why? Why would I waste my time trying to convince you something? I'm too lazy to convince myself to be productive right now, so why would I convince you in anything?

If you currently use C++, then it may make sense for you to use Rust. Rust is essentially C++ but with a better type system, modern language features that aren't tacked on as an afterthought, and a robust static analysis tool known as the "borrow checker" built into the language.

The borrow checker is the worst part of Rust. The borrow checker only catches trivial memory safety errors and makes it a pain in the ass to write efficient code.
If Rust really were just C++ + traits - bullshit, I'd be all over it. But the borrow checker is terrible.

Attached: file(19)(93).png (1200x1698, 3.63M)

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the unsafe keyword is a part of the language and that you should use it when it makes sense.
That is assuming that the problem is the borrow checker and not you.

But why even have the borrow checker if unsafe code can violate its invariants?

Because the borrow checker works fine for almost everything you'll ever write and it yells at you if you make a mistake (e.g. heartbleed)
When you absolutely need to handle memory yourself then you tell the compiler to shut up and trust you. You do not violate the invariants.

Can I make a mutable tree in safe rust without spilling unnecessary allocations everywhere?

No, because data structures deal heavily with memory allocation.
In that case you pick an (unsafe) implementation that has already been tested and is known to be correct.

Very few use cases need custom data structures.

>No, because data structures deal heavily with memory allocation.
>In that case you pick an (unsafe) implementation that has already been tested and is known to be correct.
this is bullshit/FUD spread by sepples brainlets/shills, you allocate memory once and then pass around data through borrowing

A systems programming language that makes it difficult to control memory allocation or even create for-purpose data structure is unfit for purpose.

Sometimes you need more than one mutable reference at different locations.

>writing unsafe { } is difficult
Typecasting is a bit too verbose but that hardly makes it "unfit"

unsafe { &mut *rev as *mut T }; vs just using the fucking pointer.
It's absurd that Rust consistently describes how "ergonomic" its features are when you need to jump through hoops like that just to extract a regular old pointer from a reference.

You can just use a fucking pointer, why are you using a reference in your example?

You can't just take a pointer to something. You have to get a reference and cast it.

Can't spell Cuck without C LMAO Ironic

Tell us a single programming God you know of that have spoken well or used Rust.

/like.

It's weeb approved

github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?utf8=✓&q=madoka&type=

The faggot that created rust-regex and ripgrep. That much determination and efforts only to be able to create parsers for regular grammars requires weapon grade autism.
Also the guy that creates Dyon as an excuse to live out his math spergism.

Here's a crazy idea, if you're working with pointers, store a fucking pointer, not a reference.

anyone who supports rust is a villain

Attached: rust.png (195x225, 64K)

You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain.