Yeah. I prefer rust but I defiantly had a far easier time learning c and apply my existing programming knowledge. Getting my head around the borrow checker was one hell of a pain in the ass.
The thing is that “learning C” means “I can write C code that compiles and might be full of bugs”, whereas “learning Rust” means “I can write Rust code that compiles and has a small number of bugs”. It’s not apples-to-apples.
It’s like saying “I found it easier to learn primary school maths than I did to learn a physics degree”.
I defiantly had a far easier time learning c and apply my existing programming knowledge. Getting my head around the borrow checker was one hell of a pain in the ass.
What specifically was difficult to understand about the borrow checker? Much of what the borrow checker requires you to do are things that you still need to do in C just without compiler support.
Rust allows you to create more powerful abstractions, which can allow you to express your intent in a clearer way. C code can feel like you’re bogged down by details all the time. C is on the other hand a smaller language, so just getting to the point where you “know” the language is a lot easier.
I’m not talking about building I’m talking about programming. I defiantly agree rust has some very nice tooling but the language itself has quite a steep learning curve that isn’t kind to newcomers.
Well, I did mean accessible in terms of feeling semi-confident to contribute to a project with users. If you end up writing code that takes longer to review than it would’ve taken the reviewer to write it themselves, that’s always kind of unfortunate…
Rust doesn’t help with accessibility its just as easy if not easyer to write c. Its just that when u write bad c u have real serious issues.
Have you used both languages before?
Yeah. I prefer rust but I defiantly had a far easier time learning c and apply my existing programming knowledge. Getting my head around the borrow checker was one hell of a pain in the ass.
The thing is that “learning C” means “I can write C code that compiles and might be full of bugs”, whereas “learning Rust” means “I can write Rust code that compiles and has a small number of bugs”. It’s not apples-to-apples.
It’s like saying “I found it easier to learn primary school maths than I did to learn a physics degree”.
What specifically was difficult to understand about the borrow checker? Much of what the borrow checker requires you to do are things that you still need to do in C just without compiler support.
I hope you recognize the irony.
that’s odd most people praise rust for being incredibly easy to install and build any project with rustup and cargo
you can do remarkably sophisticated things using a few crates, simple data structures and types and at C speeds or faster
i think you’re wrong
Rust allows you to create more powerful abstractions, which can allow you to express your intent in a clearer way. C code can feel like you’re bogged down by details all the time. C is on the other hand a smaller language, so just getting to the point where you “know” the language is a lot easier.
I’m not talking about building I’m talking about programming. I defiantly agree rust has some very nice tooling but the language itself has quite a steep learning curve that isn’t kind to newcomers.
both C and Rust have learning curves that get steep after the initial trivial stuff
with C as soon as you’re in array/string/pointer land, you’re in a world of seg faults
you can get so much more done as a beginner in Rust before you get anywhere near dealing with ownership or creating advanced generics
Well, I did mean accessible in terms of feeling semi-confident to contribute to a project with users. If you end up writing code that takes longer to review than it would’ve taken the reviewer to write it themselves, that’s always kind of unfortunate…