undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrstuart41338mo ago0 comments

> I can't quite see how this works in Rust...

You won't understand it unless refactor some Rust programs.

Bunny summed it up rather well. He said in most languages, when pull on some thread, you end disappearing into a knot and you're changes are just creating a bigger knot. In Rust, when pull on a thread, the language tells you where it leads. Creating a bigger knot generally leads to compile errors.

Actually he didn't say that, but I can't find the quote. I hope it was something like that. Nonetheless he was 100% spot on. That complexity you bemoan about the language is certainly there - but it's different to what you have experienced before.

In most languages, complex features tend lead to complex code. That's what made me give up on Python in the end. When you start learning Python, it seems a delightfully simple yet powerful language. But then you discover metaclasses, monkey patching, and decorators, which all seem like powerful and useful tools, and you use them to do cool things. I twisted Python's syntax into grammar productions, so you could write normal looking python code that got turned into an LR(1) parser for example. Then you discover other peoples code that uses those features to produce some other cute syntax, and it has a bug, and when you look closely your brain explodes.

As you say C doesn't have that problem, because it's such a simple language. C++ does have that problem, because it's a very complex language. I'm guessing you are making deduction from those two examples that complex languages lead to hard to understand code. But Rust is the counter example. Rust's complexity is forces you to write simple code. Turns out it's the complexity of the code that matters, not the complexity of the language.

0 comments

uecker8mo ago

I only have limited experience with Rust (only playing around a bit). But it seems the language forces you to structure the code in a specific way (and you seem to agree). This is good, because it prevents you from making a mess (at some level at least). But what others report (and it matches my limited experience) is that it makes the structure of the code very rigid. So I do not quite see how this does not limit refactoring? What some of you describe in this thread is type-directed refactoring (i.e. you change a type and the compiler tells what you need to change), but is this not limited to relatively basic changes?

In C, you can make partial changes and accept a temporary inconsistency. This gives you a lot of flexibility that I find helpful.

Expurple8mo ago

I'll put it like this. Rust causes you to refactor more often and do a full refactoring at once (because the interfaces are so rigid), but it makes it easy to do a full (and correct) refactoring very quickly. Think of it as docs being part of the interface and the compiler forcing you to always update the docs. That's an amazing property

rstuart4133OP8mo ago

> So I do not quite see how this does not limit refactoring?

Yes it limits refactoring. But all languages provide syntactic and semantic constraints you must operate within. You can't just add line noise to a C program and expect it to compile.

So your complaint isn't that there are limits, it's that there is less of them in C, so it's easier to make changes in C without putting too much thought into it. That is absolutely correct. It's also true that's is far easier to introduce a bug in C code when you refactor than it is in Rust, and that's so because it's harder to write buggy code in Rust that gets past the compiler.

Perhaps an example. Consider:

    inline char foo(uint8_t i, char a[]) { return *(a + 1); }

What does this code do? In C or C++, it's impossible to answer. If i overflows, it's UB. If you go past the end of the array, it's UB. Since it's inlined, there is no way to know if either could happen. If compiler can prove some particular instance is UB, it can do whatever it damned well pleases, without informing the poor programmer. There are lots of worse examples, particularly in C++.

In Rust, it's entirely predictable what happens for any given input, as Rust forbids UB in safe code. But in order to pull that off, Rust forces you to re-write the above function, perhaps into something like this:

    fn foo(i: u8, a: &[u8]) -> u8 { a[(i + 1) as usize] }

or:

    fn foo(i: u8, a: &str) -> char { a.chars().skip((i as usize) + 1).next().unwrap() }

or many other variations depending what you actually need to do. Notice for example you where forced to say whether you're happy with incrementing 255 to 256. If you weren't, you would write it as (i + 1) as usize.

Yes, it's more mental effort. In return, you don't get your arse handed to you on a platter because you recompiled with a newer, smarter version of the compiler that noticed you violated some language rule only a language lawyer would know, and took advantage of it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse