I just looked at the source code for "blink" on the Arduino in Rust:

https://github.com/avr-rust/bl... [github.com]

Ewwww! Pass the eye-bleach.

(and explain all the bugs in it, eg. setting *all* the pins in PORTB to output, not just one of them...)

Here it is in C++:

void setup() {
pinMode(LED_BUILTIN, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
delay(1000);
digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, LOW);
delay(1000);
}

And let us not forget disjunctive syntax. Traits are not a core part of the syntax, but expressed thru a decorator language. Shades of Objective-C.

Yes, I love everything about it except the language itself, too. I think for what it is, it needed declarative syntax, and it would have been much better for readibility as an extended Haskell, rather than trying to present itself/wrap itself in C syntax, and then have all these horrible places where it clearly is not and breaks expections horribly.

For some whom I've talk to about that, I've found because it forces breaking of old habits. Real dirty parallel.

//C Example
FILE *fptr;
fptr = fopen("foo.txt", "r");
if ( fptr == NULL ) //DO SOMETHING ERROR-ISH

Now we all agree that checking of the pointer right after open is good coding. However, if you don't have it, your code will compile none-the-less. However, in Rust the file open method returns a std::io::Result, because of that, you must handle the failure condition or your code will not compi

I don't. I could probably not care less about it, but having it shoved in your face like the greatest thing since sliced bread all the time is hugely annoying.

Did someone mention Ruby?

They don't compete in the same space. Python is a scripting language used to "glue" libraries written in faster languages.

Rust seeks to replace C and C++. Major competitors in that race include Go, Swift, etc.--generally, any language that claims to be capable of "systems" programming. Nobody is claiming that you'd want to write an OS kernel in Python.

Fortunately not! I do very much agree though. People that are "passionate" for a tool pretty much universally have some shortcoming they hope that tool will fix. Everybody else may find the tool convenient or nice, but "passion" does not come into it.

Its called C++

Indeed. There is some evolution in some areas, but this thing is not it. I myself have moved back to C for all heavy lifting after having tried quite a few other things, but having Python as glue on top is nice and convenient.

Just like how to a child raised on frozen pizza, Pizza Hut must be amazing.

What are you talking about? Pizza Hut is amazing! I mean, cheese inside the crust? That's innovation and courage right there! Take that, Apple!

Well, it depends. For some tasks, sure. For others, no chance in hell. A competent programmer would not use it for the second type though or would add a library for the core of that specific task. Or, if small, use inline-C in Haskell. The mere presence of that possibility already marks it as a tool aimed straight at competent people that know what they are doing.

In the end, there are tools that let competent coders do their thing, and there are tools that try to aid semi-competent and incompetent ones, but

I suggest they call it "Corrosion."

Much more sophisticated. Also remains truthful.

Have you really never had the way that you think and you operate challenged by a new piece of technology?

For me, I can think of it happening several times in my career. Some of these were a long time ago: the first time I saw OO, when I discovered version control, then dependency management tooling and/or repos like CPAN, or maven. More recently, the simplicity of text markup like markdown, and (ironically) a walk away from OO.

So what you're saying is, Rust programmers are the IT industry's equivalent of ISIS.

Hmm, I'll have to sit on this for a while.

Thereâ(TM)s not going to be a jump forward like Rust any time soon. And thatâ(TM)s because of computer science and logics, not sociology. Rust uses a variation of affine logic to prove memory safety and other critical properties at compile time. And relevant logics arenâ(TM)t invented very often at all. The jump from C whose design isnâ(TM)t underpinned this way to Rust is not going to come again. Rust is the first language to bring memory safety without a runtime system to a practical l

If you can solve your problem with Python, then you should. Rust is for when you would otherwise have to use C. Until the invention of Rust, there were many situations where you had to use C and, therefore risked security vulnerabilities due to its lack of memory safety. Even today, there are situations where you have to use C.