[estebank]

Really happy to see these results on the perception of googlers on quality of the Rust compiler errors, an area I'm highly passionate about. I'd like to take this as an opportunity to encourage the 9% (and the other 91% as well) to file tickets when we don't meet the bar we've set for ourselves.

[nmlt]

I haven’t tried debugging with lldb in some time so I don’t know whether it has improved significantly, but couldn’t the 9% also include that?

[estebank]

It could be the case. There are multiple separate efforts to improve the debugging experience in production (improving monitoring, cheap profiling, improving logging, encoding more info in the DWARF output), but all of those will take some time to reach the same level of quality that, for example, Java has today.

[sanxiyn]

I am somewhat pessimistic because LLVM is significantly behind GCC in debug information quality (for example, see https://robert.ocallahan.org/2018/11/comparing-quality-of-de...) and there is limit to what Rust can do about it short of fixing LLVM.

[larsberg]

Thanks for all of your work (in addition to that of others) - it really shows! We do encourage people to create minimal repro cases and open bugs whenever possible. And, even more ideally, to consider contributing a PR upstream...

[WaffleIronMaker]

I'm a junior developer learning Rust, and I just want to say thank you for all of the work you've put into making the errors high quality. It makes learning the language such a better experience.