I can understand why people hate on Go or D. But what's the big deal with Rust? Well, apart from being ugly and having fanboys freaking everywhere. And don't get me wrong: I never even wrote one line of it but at least it *tries* to solve some of the problems we have...?
>>9 From what I've read, Rust is promising but does this stuff more than other langs as it's supported by Mozilla. if you look for arguments against it anywhere, you'll see that it mostly boils down to non-sequitur and "buzzwords" like cuck/SJW, especially if you look in /g/ or hackerjews.
second thing, apart from the sjw stuff, the problem with rust is that it's extremely overhyped. what is rust? it's a statically typed functional (but not purely functional) memory-safe language which compiles to machine code. that's all. it's not the second coming, it's not the only way to write natively compiled programs without worrying about buffer overflows and it sure as hell doesn't guarantee your programs will be bug-free and secure (this is generally a problem with typefags - they think that all the bugs and vulnerabilities boil down to type errors and that a good type system will prevent it all; this is either 'silver bullet' wishful thinking or just snake oil).
third thing, it's kinda ugly and it's just not pleasant to write it. unsafe languages make the obvious solution incorrect and the correct solution tedious. rust simply makes the obvious solution not compile.
now, don't get me wrong - rust has some interesting features. borrow checker has its potential - but it's not the ultimate solution to all our problems. it's not even production-ready yet.
the problem with rust is that it's extremely overhyped.
How is that a problem? You could easily ignore all the shills and learn the language on your own, you don't necessarily have to engage with the community to use a language.
and it sure as hell doesn't guarantee your programs will be bug-free and secure
Again, only shills claim that. Nothing can absolutely guarantee that your programs will be bug-free and secure, but for example proper use of ADTs can help prevent a lot of invalid state errors.
it's kinda ugly and it's just not pleasant to write it.
That's entirely subjective, and will probably change as you learn it.
Most of your complaints are about the retard shills rather than the language.
Name:
Not >>112017-08-30 17:44
>>16 The language doesn't exist in a vacuum, you are going to use software written by these retards and it will have the according quality.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-30 19:28
>>17 Whether a person is a shill or not doesn't affect its quality
OOP is just Math (currying), how would math damage your brain?
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-31 7:02
>>16 yes, I admit that I have more problems with retard shills than with the language. if not for the community, it would be a pretty interesting (if still only slightly more mature than 'research' level) language, although I still think writing in it is not fun. but honestly, I'd rather interact with *nixers, FIOCers and smug Lisp weenies than with rustfags - and that's the major reason I steer clear of Rust.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-31 7:26
are those dubs rusty?
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-31 8:23
So, instead of writing the method inside the class hierarchy, it is written outside and a receiver variable is used to signify to which class the method belongs. I guess this approach is a little bit more liberating, but it doesn't address the issues that I have with languages that implement strictly classical OOP (e.g., Java, C#, Haxe). In these languages, all code must be in a class, and further more, all data must be bound the code in the form of object properties. This why OOP produces big balls of mud; normal people (and computers) place the code over here, the data over there, and the program applies the code (as functions or procedures) to the data (as primitives, structs, objects, tuples, or other "dumb" things).
Still, the semantic notion of an object that can "have" properties and methods is useful. Personally, I prefer the approach to object-oriented programming that the Nim language takes. In Nim, the object data type resembles a struct like you have in C, but it is a little more sophisticated because a object in Nim can be extended hierarchically like a class in Java or C# can. However, in Nim, the object is just a data structure. There are no classes that have methods like there are in C# or Java. Methods are defined at the global scope of the module as ordinary procedures whose first argument is an object. Nim also provides the Universal Function Call Syntax; if there is a function f that takes two arguments a and b, then the syntax f(a, b) is equivalent to a.f(b). By providing hierarchies of objects but not classes, and by implementing what is semantically a method as syntactically an ordinary procedure, object-oriented programming can be done within a procedural paradigm. Go also does something similar to Nim by using receiver variables because it doesn't have UFCS, but I think this is not as elegant.
>>23 Nim does look nice, but it seems like it's full of undefined behaviour.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-31 12:34
I'm not the pheasant plucker, I'm the pheasant plucker's mate, and I'm only plucking pheasants 'cause the pheasant plucker's late. I'm not the pheasant plucker, I'm the pheasant plucker's son, and I'm only plucking pheasants till the pheasant plucker comes.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-31 15:47
>>13 Cudder is a homophobic Russian transsexual, supporting Putin and hating Jews. Cudder has admited it himself, being Russian, so everything applying to Russian bydlo also applies to Cudder.
No. It's a hobbyist language with one of the shittiest GC possible. It's supposedly a system programming language too, so the shitty GC alone makes it not worth anyone's time.