yahyahyah: Why should Rust follow formal industry standards? It's both easier and cheaper if we don't. - Alec Baldwin, probably

buckwebb: HugeMistake: Rust is one very good idea surrounded by a poorly designed language.

When I was learning it, I got to the point where the book says "A common mistake made by Rust programmers is..." and I wanted to throw the book against the wall. If the language commonly misleads the programmer into mistakes, that's a big problem. As Tony Hoare wrote, "The language's designer is responsible for errors commonly made by its programmers."

Yep. To me, Rust is one of the more difficult ones to master well enough to mentally structure how I should develop the application using it's peculiar design. As opposed to C, C#, C++, I've found it more difficult to be reasonably good at it.

studebaker hoch: Rust was designed with one objective in mind:  To piss off anyone who is actually experienced in C/C++ pointer math, by holding their hand like you are six years old and never letting the f*** go of it.

Their superfluous parenthesis thing is dumb.  And I wish they would enforce immutables like Scala.

However, I was willing to put up with Rust for the Nom parser, that thing is a hot rod for AST modeling.