[ChubbyGlasses]

Same, I was really hopeful that Rust was going to fill the void of a modern systems language (been following it since around 0.6), but judging by the direction it's been headed the since 1.0, state of libs and the ecosystem, and the general community sentiment, I've kinda lost hope at this point. To quote Carbon's readme, "barriers range from changes in the idiomatic design of software" (emphasis mine).

What took the cake for me though, was a post a couple weeks ago where people were griping about Go's error handling (if err != nil) when Rust is, at best, no better than Go (e.g if you want to add any context to your error), or just objectively worse off (? operator moves all your error handling logic to a separate, completely different part of your code base).

[xedrac]

> people were griping about Go's error handling (if err != nil) when Rust is, at best, no better than Go

Have you used Rust in a non-trivial context recently? I have a few minor gripes about Rust's error handling, but Go's error handling isn't even in the same ballpark. Your complaint about the ? operator is moot, because you can easily use "match", "if let", "unwrap_or_else()", etc... to handle the errors in place. ? just gives you the convenience of mapping/propagating an error, which is desirable in some situations.

[ChubbyGlasses]

> "match", "if let", "unwrap_or_else()", etc...

all different ways to write `if err != nil`, none of them are better than the other

> mapping/propagating an error

which is literally what i said "moves all your error handling logic to a separate file"

have you written any long-term maintainable code? comments like yours is why i've lost hope in rust and the community; you don't even understand the challenges large code bases face and yet continue with baseless zealotry.

[xedrac]

> all different ways to write `if err != nil`

Not hardly. This comment makes me think you don't have any significant experience with Rust.

> you don't even understand the challenges large code bases face

I've worked in more large code bases than I care to think about, including ones written in Go. In fact, one of the primary reasons I like Rust is because it gives me so much confidence when working in large codes. The compiler is ruthless! Data races won't compile. Forgot to handle a return value? Won't compile. Undefined behavior? Not likely. Async code that looks like sync code? You bet! I'm not hating on Go here; I think it's a fine language. And Rust isn't without its problems.

>continue with baseless zealotry

It's certainly not baseless, but I can see how it would come across as zealotry. I'm simply excited about Rust because it has made my life as a programmer much better.