> So far I've always succeeded without using "unsafe" or indices, but it drags down productivity.

There is a common perception that Rust is less productive than competing languages, but empirical research by Google and others has found this to be wrong. Rust just shifts the effort earlier in the development phase, where the costs are often orders of magnitude lower. You may spend a few hours struggling with the borrow checker, but that saves you countless days of debugging highly non-trivial defects, especially in a larger codebase.

> Although object-oriented programming is out of fashion, classes with inheritance are useful. It's really hard to do something comparable in Rust. Traits are not that helpful for this.

FWIW, "classes with inheritance" in Rust can be very elegantly modeled with generic typestate. (Traits are used as part of this pattern, but are not the full story.) It might look clunky at first glance, but it accurately reflects the underlying semantics.

▲

lelanthran 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Rust just shifts the effort earlier in the development phase, where the costs are often orders of magnitude lower.

That works fantastically when you're rewriting something - you already have the idea and final product nailed down.

It works poorly when you don't have everything nailed down and might switch a lot of stuff around, or remove stuff that isn't needed, etc.

	▲	goku12 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It works poorly when you don't have everything nailed down and might switch a lot of stuff around, or remove stuff that isn't needed, etc. I do prototype applications in Rust and it involves heavy refactoring including deletions. Those steps are the easiest ones for me and rarely gives me any headache. Part of the reason are the interfaces that you're forced to define clearly early on. Even the unrelated friction of satisfying the borrow checker gently nudge you towards that. The real problems are often caused by certain operations that the type system can't prove to be safe, even when they are. For example, you couldn't write async closures until recently. Such situations often require lots of thought to resolve. You may have to restructure your code or use a workaround like RC variables. The point is, these sorts of assumptions often don't seem to hold in practice, at least in my experience. My personal experience doesn't agree with the assertion that prototyping is hard in Rust.
	▲	zozbot234 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> It works poorly when you don't have everything nailed down and might switch a lot of stuff around If you're prototyping code you can just do defensive .clone() calls and use Rc<> to avoid borrow checker issues. You don't need maximum efficiency, and the added boilerplate doesn't hurt that much: in fact, it helps should you want to refactor the code later.
	▲	ModernMech 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think that's actually where Rust can shine -- it's very good at refactoring, so when you move stuff around and cut things out that you don't need, the compiler tells you exactly how to put everything back together and what exactly needs to be changed. As the codebase grows, refactorability becomes crucial, because refactors are risky and can fail, causing major schedule disruptions. High code velocity achieved early on by ignoring reference lifetimes and borrows and type checking early on might feel good, but these features are a detriment later one when the project needs to start making guarantees.

▲

Hendrikto 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Rust just shifts the effort earlier in the development phase […]. You may spend a few hours struggling with the borrow checker.

And by the time you got it figured out, the requirements change, and you’re back to struggling with the borrow checker.

> that saves you countless days of debugging highly non-trivial defects, especially in a larger codebase.

Seems like many projects never get to the point where the architecture toil pays off. Instead, they spend 80–90% of their time trying to find the perfect architecture, which is then brittle against change.

▲

krater23 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You may spend a few hours struggling with the borrow checker, but that saves you countless days of debugging highly non-trivial defects, especially in a larger codebase.

How often do you had issues like that in the last 10 years of your work? Questionable if it's really cheaper for everyone. Other question, is there any really large Rust codebase out there thats older than 10 years? That had time to gather crust of tons of developers to compare with the appropriate C++ codebases? I don't think so.

▲

UltraSane 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The biggest issue with Rust that I have found is that there are phase changes where making small changes to the code becomes impossible and you must completely redesign the program for it to work with the borrow checker.