[vvern]

My biggest issue with rust after two years is just as you highlight: the mod/crate divide is bad!

I want it to be easier to have more crates. The overhead of converting a module tree into a new crate is high. Modules get to have hierarchy, but crates end up being flat. Some of this is a direct result of the flat crate namespace.

A lot of the toil ends up coming from the need to muck with toml files and the fact that rust-analyzer can’t do it for me. I want to have refactoring tools to turn module trees into crates easily.

I feel like when I want to do that, I have to play this game of copying files then playing whack-a-mole until I get all the dependencies right. I wish dependencies were expressed in the code files themselves a la go. I think go did a really nice job with the packaging and dependency structure. It’s what I miss most.

[movpasd]

It's a surprising choice that Rust made to have the unit of compilation and unit of distribution coincide. I say surprising, because one of the tacit design principles I've seen and really appreciated in Rust is the disaggregation of orthogonal features.

For example, classical object-oriented programming uses classes both as an encapsulation boundary (where invariants are maintained and information is hidden) and a data boundary, whereas in Rust these are separated into the module system and structs separately. This allows for complex invariants cutting across types, whereas a private member of a class can only ever be accessed within that class, including by its siblings within a module.

Another example is the trait object (dyn Trait), which allows the client of a trait to decide whether dynamic dispatch is necessary, instead of baking it into the specification of the type with virtual functions.

Notice also the compositionality: if you do want to mandate dynamic dispatch, you can use the module system to either only ever issue trait objects, or opaquely hide one in a struct. So there is no loss of expressivity.

[steveklabnik]

The history here is very interesting, Rust went through a bunch of design iteration early, and then it just kinda sat around for a long time, and then made other choices that made modifying earlier choices harder. And then we did manage to have some significant change (for the good) in Rust 2018.

Rust's users find the module system even more difficult than the borrow checker. I've tried to figure out why, and figure out how to explain it better, for years now. Never really cracked that nut. The modules chapter of TRPL is historically the least liked, even though I re-wrote it many times. I wonder if they've tried again lately, I should look into that.

> Another example is the trait object (dyn Trait), which allows the client of a trait to decide whether dynamic dispatch is necessary, instead of baking it into the specification of the type with virtual functions.

Here I'd disagree: this is separating the two features cleanly. Baking it into the type means you only get one choice. This is also how you can implement traits on foreign types so easily, which matters a lot.

[movpasd]

Sorry if my comment wasn't clear: I'm saying that I think in both the module and trait object case, Rust has done a good job of cleanly separating features, unlike in classic (Java or C++) style OOP.

I'm surprised the module system creates controversy. It's a bit confusing to get one's head around at first, especially when traits are involved, but the visibility rules make a ton of sense. It quite cleanly solves the problem of how submodules should interact with visibility. I've started using the Rust conventions in my Python projects.

I have only two criticisms:

First, the ergonomics aren't quite there when you do want an object-oriented approach (a "module-struct"), which is maybe the more common usecase. However, I don't know if this is a solvable design problem, so I prefer the tradeoff Rust made.

Second, and perhaps a weaker criticism, the pub visibility qualifiers like pub(crate) seems extraneous when re-exports like pub use exist. I appreciate maybe these are necessary for ergonomics, but it does complicate the design.

There is one other piece of historical Rust design I am curious about, which is the choice to include stack unwinding in thread panics. It seems at odds with the systems programming principle usecase for Rust. But I don't understand the design problem well enough to have an opinion.

[steveklabnik]

Ah, yeah I slightly misunderstood, no worries :)

> the pub visibility qualifiers like pub(crate) seems extraneous

I feel this way too, but some people seem to use them.

> which is the choice to include stack unwinding in thread panics. It seems at odds with the systems programming principle usecase for Rust.

In what way?

[Wilfred]

> Rust's users find the module system even more difficult than the borrow checker. I've tried to figure out why, and figure out how to explain it better, for years now.

The module system in Rust is conceptually huge, and I feel it needs a 'Rust modules: the good parts' resource to guide people.

(1) There are five different ways to use `pub`. That's pretty overwhelming, and in practice I almost never see `pub(in foo)` used.

(2) It's possible to have nested modules in a single file, or across multiple files. I almost never see modules with braces, except `mod tests`.

(3) It's possible to have either foo.rs or foo/mod.rs. It's also possible to have both foo.rs and foo/bar.rs, which feels inconsistent.

(4) `use` order doesn't matter, which can make imports hard to reason about. Here's a silly example:

use foo::bar; use bar::foo;

(Huge fan of your writing, by the way!)

[steveklabnik]

Full agree with 1, I do use 2 depending (if I'm making a tree of modules for organization, and a module only contains imports of other modules, I'll use the curly brace form to save the need of making a file), and I'm not sure why 4 makes it harder? Wouldn't it be more confusing if order mattered? maybe I need to see a full example :)

Thank you!

[Wilfred]

In `use foo::bar; use bar::foo;`, am I importing an external crate called foo that has a submodule bar::foo, or vice versa?

This bit me when trying to write a static analysis tool for Rust that finds missing imports: you essentially need to loop over imports repeatedly until you reach a fixpoint. Maybe it bites users rarely in practice.

[mamcx]

Hard agree. Is retrospect I think the model of Delphi, where you must assemble `manually` a `pkg` so you can export to the world should have been used instead.

It also have solved the problem where you ended doing a lot of `public` not because the logic dictated it, but as only way to share across crates.

It should have been all modules (even main.rs with mandatory `lib.rs` or whatever) and `crate` should have been a re-exported interface.

[steveklabnik]

> Hard agree. Is retrospect I think the model of Delphi, where you must assemble `manually` a `pkg` so you can export to the world should have been used instead.

Very very old Rust had "crate files" which were this https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/a8eeec1dbd7e06bc811e5...

.rc standing for "rust crate"

There's pros and cons here. I'm of two minds.

[vvern]

How would you compare that to, say, go? I think the unit of distribution in go is a module, and the unit of compilation is a package. That being said, by using `internal` packages and interfaces you can similarly create the same sort of opaque encapsulation.