DeathArrow 3 months ago

You get speed of development, productivity, lots of libraries. You get something that is easy to learn and understand.

Reply View 2 replies
  • airstrike 3 months ago

    Lots of libraries if you want .NET, right? But if you don't, Rust has way more libraries

    Speed of development is debatable. I think you can be pretty fast with both.

    Easy to learn I concede but it gets easier with time, until it becomes very easy

    Reply View 1 reply
    • loxs 3 months ago

      Having written a moderately big project in OCaml which I tried porting to F# and later did port to Rust, to me Rust feels much faster to develop than either OCaml or F#, especially once you figure out the "core", adding more features is a breeze. Refactoring is also easier. Not to mention that reading Rust is much easier than reading OCaml and coming back to the project after a year feels very easy. I think that I have less bugs with Rust than with OCaml. And the end product's core ended up being ~3-4 times faster to execute in Rust.

      Reply View 0 replies
UK-Al05 3 months ago

Less arduous memory management.

Reply View 1 reply
  • airstrike 3 months ago

    I am not sure what you mean. My memory management for a recent 30k LOC app boils down to "thinking before cloning"

    Reply View 0 replies