Hacker News Reader

Comment by slashdev | Hacker News Reader

Rust iterators are beautiful. If you've ever implemented C++ iterators, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how elegant it is in Rust by comparison (actually you could replace iterators with about any language feature and the above holds true.)

I really like Rust as a language, it's like a lightsaber, an elegant weapon from a more civilized era. Go feels a bit more like a blaster (sorry May 4th was yesterday.)

That said, when it comes to getting things done, the blaster seems more effective. I would chalk that up to garbage collection, goroutines vs async+await, and simplicity of the language in general. That said I use both languages regularly because they have different strengths and weaknesses and one is usually a clearly better option depending on the problem and requirements.

View on HN

Apparently I’m pretty much alone in thinking that Rust is a clumbsy, messy language. The syntax is all over the place. You get the feeling that there’s no design strategy and than anyone with half an idea is allowed to bolt on features.

> anyone with half an idea is allowed to bolt on features.

I know you're talking about feel here, not about process, but to be clear, while we do have a pretty open and fairly democratic process, and while anyone can propose a feature, only the language team members, which is currently five folks, can decide to say "yes" to a proposal. The team may have been plus or minus a few over the years, but it's never been particularly large.

(We generally feel this process works well to balance all these factors; we want everyone's good ideas, but we also have to maintain coherence. An open suggestion process with a closed selection process has worked well in our eyes, but everyone can feel differently, of course.)

I’m guessing you’ve looked more at Rust code that uses incubating features from Rust nightly.

Most of those features don’t make it to stable—or if they do, their syntax has usually been refined by the time they do.

Inconveniently, a lot of the Rust code examples you’ll run into on HN uses incubating features, because a lot of the people posting about Rust on HN are language researchers talking about how they were finally able to implement new language feature/performance optimization/safety guarantee X using incubating language feature Y; or how they think nascent library Foo’s use of incubating language feature Z is/isn’t a good idea.

All that is inside baseball. It looks nothing like day-to-day Rust code, any more than e.g. .NET CLR static analysis code looks like day-to-day C#.

(Also, there’s the code examples of Rust stdlib code, which is like C++ STL code in that you have to use arcane language features “in anger” to bootstrap the language — e.g. safe concurrent data structures must necessarily at some point rely on unsafe code.)

(Or it’s code for a Rust unikernel / OS device driver / etc, because that’s a thing you can do. But it’s a still-nascent thing you can do, that’s not yet as ergonomic as regular code that can rely on virtual memory to exist. You have to build the safety yourself in such cases, or rely on a library that does; and there are no such libraries that have yet reached high code quality + wide cross-platform applicability.)

Rust stdlib code is a lot nicer to read than C++ stdlib code, which relies on _Mangled names to prevent conflicts, and (ab)uses template metaprogramming, SFINAE, overloading, & and && and forwarding, etc. heavily. Though Rust's trait system results in indirections comparable to (but somewhat more manageable than) C++ SFINAE/overloading/type traits. And some Rust stdlib types delegate to compiler intrinsics rather than being implemented in unsafe Rust (forgot which).

Additionally, third-party Rust data structure/concurrency crates often contain unsafe code comparable to Rust's stdlib in complexity. (And device drivers, as you mentioned, are probably highly unsafe too.)

Rust’s syntax is definitely complicated and that’s one of my least favorite things about it but it’s extremely consistent. What gives you the “all over the place” feeling?

I don’t really agree that it consistent, but maybe you’re right that it just complicated. There are so many different syntaxes for all sorts of features that you can’t really hold it all in your head.

It’s been a year since I last gave Rust a try, in the mean time I’ve been able to pick Go without much effort. Rust just seem like PHP, it’s fast, featurefull but not thought through.

You're assuming that it was difficult to learn because the features weren't thought through. Have you considered that maybe it was because there were genuinely new concepts not present in other languages?

Yeah, if anything, Rust feels to me like it's incredibly well thought through. All the pieces fit together well precisely as if they were all thought of as a whole. It's "hard" because it forces you to consider an entirely new constraint of your programs upfront. But (almost) every piece composes nicely with every other piece in a way that makes Rust development extremely pleasant.

Golang feels like the opposite, in that none of the parts are actually built to work with one another. Tuple returns exist but there are no language features that allow you to actually work with them. There's a strong type system, but you have to break out of it with interface{} and type punning to solve entire classes of common problems. Type punning exists, but go can't prove exhaustiveness of switch statements so doing this opens further gaping holes. Errors are handled explicitly everywhere, but again there are no tools to handle the repetitive lifting so every program becomes an endless series of error handling occasionally interrupted by bits of program logic. And let's not forget how badly interface pointers interact with nils: comparing a nil interface pointer against nil returns false, so a basic nil-check that works everywhere else fails to actually perform correctly when dealing with interfaces.

Is that because Rust is an expression language? As much as I like Rust, I do find that returning variables from conditionals or match expressions can feel a little jarring (especially when you combine the two). In other places though, it really shines and just requires a little discipline.

> the blaster seems more effective

And you have to, er, attack the rebels with an army of highly variable talent and training, which contains maybe one or two actual Jedi Ninjas, so maybe it's better if everyone just uses blasters and nobody cuts off their own arm.

I'd love to work in some super elegant language for my own intellectual betterment, but I really hope my next real-world gig uses something like Golang if there are more than a half-dozen devs... ever.

Agreed. I love Rust for my personal projects, but I wouldn’t trust colleagues with it at any place I’ve worked. And it’s not that my colleagues aren’t intelligent or capable, but that Rust’s expressiveness invites bineshedding on the right amount of abstraction or which crate to use or the right way to do errors or how to configure rustfmt or when to just give up a fight with the borrow checker and use clone() or etc.

Rust is a really, really cool language—perhaps my favorite language, but I’ve worked in C++ shops and Python shops and I fully expect the same amount of bike shedding at a Rust shop.

Rust is a beautiful language. Its only issue is that programming in it is painful for anyone who hasn't followed Modern C++ for a decade and then read everything on Rust, which is just Modern C++ with some niceness from ML thrown on top.

I couldn't even begin to imagine onboarding a Jr Engineer to a complex Rust project. I don't even know if it is possible.

What constitutes "Modern C++"?

I really admire Rust iterators, especially compared to C++ iterators, but I lament that there is no easy way (that I know of, anyway) to build an iterator from a closure which yields `Option<T>`s. I don’t like that I have to define a type and implement a Trait (in general working with closures is cumbersome in Rust). That said, this isn’t a major problem either and on balance I’m very happy with Rust iterators.

Might you be looking for https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/fn.from_fn.html ?

Oh wow, yeah, I think that’s it! Thanks very much!

Thanks for sharing! I wish I'd known about this earlier.

Whoa I did not know about this. This would have saved me so much time during Advent of Code…

> I lament that there is no easy way (that I know of, anyway) to build an iterator from a closure which yields `Option<T>`s.

Could you expand / explain what you actually mean here? Because I can think of multiple interpretations of this prompt which are straight up part of the stdlib, but that I can interpret this description in multiple ways shows the issue.

Let’s say I have a closure `fn() -> Option<T>`—how do I turn that into an Iterator? Maybe it’s possible with the stdlib and I’m just not familiar?

EDIT: I think this is it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27050861

Let's say std::iter::from_fn didn't exist. Then you'd need to make something that ends the iterator when the function returns none, you could do it like this:

    std::iter::repeat_with(f).take_while(|elt| elt.is_some()).filter_map(|elt| elt)

Where `.filter_map()` removes the Option layer and `repeat_with` creates an initially infinite iterator from your function `f`.

Long time ago, `repeat_with` might not have existed. Maybe you'd do something like this instead for that in Rust 1.0.0: `std::iter::repeat(()).map(|_| f())...`

You prefer to use std::iter::from_fn now that it exists, of course!

To be honest, making a simple iterator adaptor is quite easy too, so you could have a knack at making one you are missing - if you can't find it in std or in the crate itertools already.

It's probably possible to create a wrapper to do that. But if you need a closure, you can also just use a struct implementing the trait to manage the state. It's not perfect, but it's so much nicer than in C++.

> If you've ever implemented C++ iterators, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how elegant it is in Rust by comparison

You probably already know this, but if you're willing to take a dependency on Boost.Iterator, then boost::iterator_facade[1] makes it much easier and less error-prone to implement a standards-conforming iterator, and the pre-built iterator adapters[2] cover lots of common cases, so you don't need to directly implement an iterator at all.

Not arguing the relative merits of C++ vs. Rust, just leaving a pointer here for anyone who didn't know about it.

[1] https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_66_0/libs/iterator/doc/iter...

[2] https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_66_0/libs/iterator/doc/inde...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com