[ccleve]

Why was this downvoted? Rust may be the "most loved" language, but after a few weeks with it, I don't love it. We've got to face the reality that it makes simple things way too complicated.

In fairness, I have found the compiler errors to be extremely helpful. They often tell me exactly what to fix. But honestly, they shouldn't have to do that. The syntax should have been obvious from the beginning, as it is in most programming languages.

[creata]

What syntax "should have been obvious from the beginning"? I always felt like most things in Rust are around as simple as they could be, for the things the language is trying to do.

[lenkite]

Stuff like

    type TestResult = Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>>

is not obvious nor simple and makes a joke of the claim that Rust is simpler than C++ in error handling. Damn, I prefer straightforward C++ exceptions after seeing stuff like this.

[spacechild1]

I guess because it's off topic. TFA is about a specific Rust issue and a generic comment about "Rust is hard to learn" doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's like the generic "C++ is way to complicated" comment under every C++ post. They just incite language flame wars and district from the actually interesting stuff.

[staticassertion]

It's because, for some reason, the rust community is extremely, overly aggressive about downvoting. I think we can all just admit that - I've been using Rust since 2014 and it's always been an issue and it needs to be called out.

[jamincan]

I haven't commented/been upvoted enough to be allowed to downvote, and it is honestly quite liberating and lets me focus on elevating what I think are positive contributions.

[sAbakumoff]

Right, the HN comments are all about being on topic.

[howinteresting]

Rust also makes complicated things really simple, which is why it's been the most loved for many years in a row.

[bitwize]

Prior exposure to C appears to be negatively correlated with ease in learning Rust. This is why I say Rust is not a language for C programmers -- it's for their replacements. Young programmers with only a few years' experience in JavaScript or Ruby are now coding circles around the old C wizards, contributing bare-metal, bit-banging code that is guaranteed to be free of several classes of bugs those C wizards are still struggling with.

[kaashif]

That's surprising. I would've thought most C programmers have at least some experience writing C++, and C++ programmers (and C programmers too, but I don't know anyone who programs primarily in C so I can't comment) already do many of the things Rust does for you. Like thinking about lifetimes, const by default, moving instead of copying, avoiding raw pointers like the plague, etc.

Someone who has never thought about that stuff must surely find it harder to appreciate Rust.