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.