I love the idea of making a memory safe and performant language, but maybe we could just stop with those two things — and not require programmers to learn a pile of entirely new concepts just because someone wanted a challenge.
-
Show this thread
-
Me: ok, so maybe I should write this in Rust. Rust: we don’t call it “writing”, developing in Rust is actually a four-part process called kerzlbluch.
7 replies 35 retweets 215 likesShow this thread -
Screw it I’m just using C.
20 replies 15 retweets 139 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
Bad take. The only half reasonable criticism you made was that it didn't have real classes and then you decided you were going back to C. Wtf? I think the biggest problem for rust is that it's still not terribly stable yet. Lots of change going on.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ChaosBurrito
The last point was mostly a joke. But the truth is I know how to hack “objects” in C and it’s crummy but familiar. If I have to learn a bunch of weird new syntax and still get normal functionality only through more “hacks” then I should use the hacks I’m familiar with.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
The fact that Rust had classes and then chucked them fills me with no confidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I introduced the keyword "class" to Rust and then later changed the keyword "class" to "struct" to merge the feature with record types. Never did "class" offer inheritance. I don't think you're being fair to Rust.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.