[SomeoneOnTheWeb]

I strongly disagree.

* The performance difference can be pretty massive depending on scenarios. Sure, most programs don't need it, but still * Rust has not only memory safety but full safety around it. For instance, in Java if you iterate over a list while mutating it you'll get a runtime error. In Rust, it won't compile, preventing you from a possible bug later on * The time you spend learning Rust is so much time saved afterwards because the language is specifically designed to reduce the risk of programming errors. Many things like the absence of a `null` value like we have in Java is an immense time saver when your program gets bigger

[1718627440]

Why do you take it for granted that I can't just iterate and mutate and it works just fine?

[afdbcreid]

It could work, if iteration is using indices. But honestly I prefer it to be an error, as this is often the sign of a bug.

[1718627440]

I mean plain iteration uses function calls. Iterators are a more advanced concept that needs wrapper objects and function calls.

> as this is often the sign of a bug.

Why? I've just written that yesterday, I had never a problem with that. For example after deleting an element from an array I need to commit this change, by adjusting the size, etc. Why is it so unexpected that I also need to adjust the index? The index needs to be modified anyway.

Where is the notion coming from that this is less preferable than the workarounds, like marking some elements for deletion and then iterating a second time or by making a second container and moving everything that shouldn't be deleted (.filter) ?

[afdbcreid]

Exactly. You need to adjust the index, and if you don't you have a bug. But how to adjust the index depends on what you're doing.

And sometimes it's a simple bug where you never meant to modify the collection.

[1718627440]

But I need to adjust indices for a container when modifying anyways, regardless whether it occurs in a loop. It's not different than doing not doing it in the loop. Also I'm also modifying the loop index anyways, since I want to iterate, not always touch the same object.

> And sometimes it's a simple bug where you never meant to modify the collection.

How do you accidentally modify an array, which would be different from any other variable?

[afdbcreid]

But the index is not yours. The iterator keeps it.

> How do you accidentally modify an array, which would be different from any other variable?

Like you cause any other simple bug. When there are tons of things and it's not a simple variable. Or even just a typo. That also happens.

[1718627440]

s/I mean plain iteration uses function calls/I mean plain iteration uses indices/

[vouwfietsman]

> The time you spend learning Rust is so much time saved afterwards because the language is specifically designed to reduce the risk of programming errors

[Citation needed]