While I generally agree, the latest Android report suggests that rust developers get fewer reverts and code reviews are faster. This could mean that better developers tend to adopt rust or it could mean that rust really is a language where quality is easier to attain.

There’s some reason to believe that given how easy it is to integrate testing into the rust code base and in general the trait and class system is also a bit higher quality and it encourage better isolation and things like const by default and not allowing API that could misuse the data structure in some unsafe way. And it has a rich ecosystem that’s easy to integrate 3p dependencies so that you’re not solving the same problem repeatedly like you tend to do in c++

So there is some reason to believe Rust does actually encourage slightly higher quality code out of developers.

▲

ok123456 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Or there are "reverts and code reviews are faster" because no one wants to actually read through the perl-level line-noise type annotations, and just lgtm.

▲

aw1621107 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Or there are "reverts and code reviews are faster"

This seems like a slight misreading of the comment you're responding to. The claim is not that reverts are "faster", whatever that would mean; the claim is that the revert rate is lower.

Also, how would skimping on reviews lead to a lower revert rate? If anything, I'd imagine the normal assumption would be precisely the opposite - that skimping on reviews should lead to a higher revert rate, which is contrary to what the Android team found.

▲

oersted 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What type annotations? In Rust almost all the types are inferred outside of function and struct declarations. In terms of type verbosity (in the code) it is roughly on the same level as TypeScript and Python.

▲

ok123456 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm precisely referring to function and struct definitions. It's 10x worse when you add in async. 20x if you add in macros.

It's write only code, just like Perl but no where near as productive. Minor refactors become a game of Jenga.

▲

Philpax 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is not really a serious issue for any practicing Rust programmers.

▲

ok123456 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They all have Stockholm syndrome then.

▲

Philpax 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What's more likely: every single Rust programmer is wrong, or you're just not seeing the forest for the trees?

	▲	zdragnar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so I don't mind saying rust is butt ugly.

▲

adastra22 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.