[gavinray]

Polyglot developer here

I have not personally had the usecase for Rust just yet, but it is the only language I have never heard a negative thing about. That's huge, with how opinionated developers are.

The arguments for the language and general consensus are so strongly positive that without having used it myself I frequently recommend it (I passively follow the language's progress online).

A huge part of it is the developer ergonomics, a large amount of which comes from your compiler error messages.

When I talk to people about the gold standards, Rust and Elm are the examples I give.

Thank you guys for all your work!

[tudelo]

Try to write a small program (a basic interpreter or something like that) and i bet you will have some gripes with Rust... I found that it was an extremely slow language to ramp up on.

[skohan]

Same. I have mixed feelings about it. The tooling is great, but I'm not totally convinced the borrow checker is the be-all, end-all of memory management it's sometimes made out to be. Also some of the decisions around syntax are questionable to me, like lack of top-level-inference just feels like a step backward compared to languages which have it. Also while the trait system and macros are really powerful, a lot of times how they are used by libraries seems quite magical, and it takes a lot of digging through documentation and sometimes source to really understand how things work.

Still in spite of that, I think it's an awesome project with a lot of enthusiasm behind it, and I'm happy to see languages exploring new ideas getting so much attention.

[steveklabnik]

The lack of top level inference is a key part in getting great compiler errors: top level inference can be convenient, but it also leads to spooky action at a distance errors.

[skohan]

Interesting. I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but in Swift for example, it seems like this mostly results in an error like "unable to infer the type of X in the current context" which is maybe not the simplest error in the world to figure out, but it's really not too difficult to unwind as compared to say, cryptic C++ template errors.

I suppose you can't have everything, but in my experience top level inference makes code a lot easier to read because it removes a lot of noise and redundant information while largely leaving the "intent" of the code in place.

[steveklabnik]

Yeah I mean, it really depends on the exact type system features and implementation, but that sounds like a different error than the kind I'm talking about. For example, consider this code, imagining Rust had type signature inference:

    fn foo() {
        String::new()
    }
    
    fn bar() {
        foo()
    }
    
    fn main() {
        let s: String = bar();
    }

Imagine you modify foo, and now you're accidentally returning a Vec, not a String:

    fn foo() {
        Vec::new()
    }
    
    fn bar() {
        foo()
    }
    
    fn main() {
        let s: String = bar();
    }

You'd get an error like this:

    error[E0308]: mismatched types --> src/main.rs:10:21
       |
    10 |     let s: String = bar();
       |                     ^^^^^ expected struct `std::string::String`, found struct `std::vec::Vec`
       |
       = note: expected type `std::string::String`
                  found type `std::vec::Vec<i32>`

You changed foo, but the error points to bar, in main. None of this is related to the code you changed. But in Rust today, you'd get

    error[E0308]: mismatched types
     --> src/main.rs:2:9
      |
    1 |     fn foo() -> String {
      |                 ------ expected `std::string::String` because of return type
    2 |         Vec::new()
      |         ^^^^^^^^^^ expected struct `std::string::String`, found struct `std::vec::Vec`
      |
      = note: expected type `std::string::String`
                 found type `std::vec::Vec<_>`

This points right to the issue: you're returning a vec, and not a string, in foo.

There are other issues too; global inference and subtyping have problems. While Rust doesn't have subtyping generally, we do in lifetimes...

Beyond all of that though:

> it removes a lot of noise and redundant information while largely leaving the "intent" of the code in place.

Rust's perspective on this is that the type signature is what communicates your intent. It's like a unit test. You write down what you expect, and then the compiler's job is to check that your code does what you said you were going to do. This seems like philosophically at odds with what you expect, which is fine of course, but is probably where a lot of the divergence comes from.

[skohan]

Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to elucidate the issue so clearly.