Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> whenever someone raises concerns about any element of Rust, no matter how constructively,

I don't think that it is a very constructive article. The author's critique of Rust raises questions like "how to do it better" but there are not answers.

> they're always met with a wall of "you must not truly get the borrow checker,"

Yeah, it is frustrating in this case particularly. The author openly states that he doesn't want to learn all the quirks of the borrow checker, and people respond to it with "you just don't get the borrow checker". I can see how this answer could be helpful, but if it was expanded constructively, if there was an explanation how it can become easy to deal with problems the author faces if you understood the borrow checker. OTOH I cannot see how such an argument can be constructed without a real example with the real code and the history of failed changes to it.

I personally feel, that the borrow checker is simple, if you got it. And the author's struggles just go away, if you got it. You can easily predict what will happen if you try this or that changes to the code, and you know how to do something so the borrow checker will be happy. But I cannot elaborate and to make it clear how it works.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: