The author links to a previous post on the subject, from mid-2015, so they clearly have at least tried Rust in the past.
And while many Rust messages are OK, one should be careful not to confuse familiarity with Rust's error messages with Rust's error messages being good (being inherently informative and good).
Here's a clearer example (fixed since): http://dbeck.github.io/My-First-Steps-In-Rust/ note two issues:
* the error message is busy as all hell which is a common issue in Rust, before you've built the habit and learned how they're structured Rust error messages often look daunting. By comparison Elm makes much more extensive use of spacing and tries to avoid repeating the same information (e.g. file names) over and over.
* the suggestion it provides is just plain wrong, it suggests implementing Debug for T, but T is always a standard number which already implement Debug, what's missing is a trait bound. To a beginner that was not a helpful suggestion as it would only send them on a wild goose chase (of trying to implement Debug on either T or i32/f32, and good luck with those).
> The blog explaining the author's disdain for Rust mostly just seems to whining about the borrow checker.
So? Just like monads in haskell, the borrow checker is hard until it "clicks" (and then it fundamentally shifts your understanding and it becomes hard to understand not getting it).
 and experience/understanding for the various possible sources of the most common ones, but that you can build for any compiler, even G++'s pages of template expansion garbage from the early aughts
Er… both? In separate sections of the comment?
> Because I can [not agree] about error messages
I've provided a clear example of an issue, are you denying objective reality or are you asserting that providing incorrect suggestions leading beginners in entirely the wrong direction is fine?
Now what the hell are you talking about?
I didn't reply to your comment I replied to valarauca1, they're the one who mentioned the borrow checker, if you're unhappy about that whine to them don't include me in your pity party.
"And while many Rust messages are OK, one should be careful not to confuse familiarity with Rust's error messages with Rust's error messages being good (being inherently informative and good)."
So you will still try to pretend we are not talking about error messages here?
I'd appreciate you not insulting me, as well as you starting to make sense.
> You are responding to the branch my comment started
I was not, however, replying to your comment. As I already told you I was replying to valarauca1's comment, which is why my own comment was threaded below and in reply to it, and quoted it.
> So you will still try to pretend we are not talking about error messages here?
I'll repeat my previous query in a new context and with slightly more alarm: what the hell are you talking about?
I never "tried to pretend" we were not talking about error messages, my answer to your original query specifically noted the opposite.
 and would again appreciate not being insulted
Yeah, but you need that kind of repetition to get text editor jumping to correct line number.
AFAIK, Rust already implements concise messages on nightly.
Not really, what you need is a regular and parseable structure.
Though to be fair I am not huge fan of Elm's one error per build either.