In that case, I'd suggest learning Go first, as a kind of "step up" to learning Rust. If you haven't already, I'd also suggest learning C.
I think there's some linearity to these tasks. Rust (and C++) are an amalgamation of many complex features that are present in simpler predecessors. Learning C for example will not only speed up your ability to learn Rust, but also leave you with a deeper understanding of the core principles.
> If you haven't already, I'd also suggest learning C.
Learning a new language is not something to take lightly. Should I take 6 months in order to get more solid foundations before moving to Rust? 1 year? N years?
My biggest hurdle has been ownership ("borrow checking", which is the common problem) in the broad sense (which includes: learning to design a whole program considering ownership). This is something that C/++ programmers are surely familiar with, so it absolutely helps, but I don't think it's efficient to learn C/++ in order to step up to Rust.
The more languages you learn, especially with reusable concepts, the less of a tax it is to learn a new one. As someone who has written C/C++ for over a decade, learning Rust felt very straightforward -- I just had to learn about the borrow checker, and it was fairly straightforward to reason about how it works based on my knowledge of unique pointers in C++.
I certainly don't think C++ is a prerequisite to learning Rust, but I do think your path to deeply understanding Rust will accelerate if you understand C (or specifically, understand pointers and heap allocations). But to each their own!
Learning new languages is certainly useful/important, but time is finite. The idea of learning a certain language as a bridge to another is unrealistic unless one has a _lot_ of time.
Just replied to another comment recommending C. Can you help me understand which core principles C would help to refine i.e. what am I leaving on the table if I go with a Rust or C++?
Nothing, these languages all expose the same underlying memory controls. But going with C may still be valuable, because rust and C++ has much better abstractions and especially with Rust, it can easily hide the pointer manipulation part from you, when that’s the reason one presumably learnt the language for.
> Just replied to another comment recommending C. Can you help me understand which core principles C would help to refine i.e. what am I leaving on the table if I go with a Rust or C++?
In the other thread you mention features. I suggest C because of its "simplicity", that is, its lack of features. It really is a thin abstraction on top of assembly. C's closeness to the hardware is edifying.
Moreover, since the goal is learning, History is quite relevant. Languages evolve in the context of their predecessors. You probably already know this for typescript since it is so close to JavaScript. But how do C++ and rust relate to C? And how does Go relate to C++ and C?
Languages always involve tradeoffs. For example, a language that checks memory bounds at runtime (Go) uses more CPU cycles than one that doesn't (C). A compiler that does checks is more complex than one that doesn't. Language features can help with safety (rust), but then the language takes more time to learn. Complexity can be hidden (Go garbage collection) to make up front learning easier, but this can make the language less flexible or more difficult to debug. Complexity can be exposed later but then the language learning curve is lengthened.
I'm not suggesting you go become a C pro, but learn enough to shoot yourself in the foot. It will help contextualize the features of these other languages and give your more mental tools for decision making in your own code.
Pointers :). C++ and Rust try to hide the concept away with References, which add a very helpful amount of type safety, but do not protect you from the fundamental idea of allocating memory and then later free-ing it.
It's not that you leave it on the table with Rust/C++ but more that you'll have a deeper understanding for what's going on if you understand how pointers work in C.
Thanks this is what I was looking for! Pointers are one of those things I’ve heard about for years but don’t know too much about. I know that in js objects are passed by copies of a reference to that object in memory. I have never felt that there was something missing here — only that it requires an understanding of which types in js are passed by value vs reference. What is the upside to pointers in C? For instance in js I can pass an object to a function that modifies the object’s properties. The only thing I can’t do (I think) is pass an object to a function, and then reassign that object’s reference to a new object literal such that the original object reference now references the new object literal. Is this gap in a language like js where pointers come in, or am I missing the forest for the trees? If this is where pointers become useful/beneficial to be knowledgeable on, can they really be that useful? Full disclaimer that I don’t know anything about pointers aside from implementing data structures in js e.g. a linked list node has a `this.next` property, but in other languages this seems to be called/implemented as a pointer from what I’ve seen.
To sum my thoughts on this up: can you help me understand why pointers would be useful for me to invest in learning on the level of C versus continuing to let them be abstracted away/not present in my language? What would that knowledge do for me? Will I be a better problem solver etc. thanks again!
It's not that there's an "advantage" to pointers, but rather it's the reality that they exist. Everything you're doing in JS also "uses" pointers under the hood, but the language and runtime abstract that away from you. C exposes you to pointers directly, so you have an opportunity to learn what they are and how they work.
It's important to learn how they work, because it'll give you a better idea of what's actually happening in the higher level languages you're using. That may not be important if you stick to JS or Go, but if you'd like to learn Rust then it's impossible to accurately think through tradeoffs like whether to use Box, Rc, Arc, etc. without understanding how pointers work. In other words, I'd only recommend learning Rust if you take the time to understand pointers, and the best way to understand pointers is to write C.
I think there's some linearity to these tasks. Rust (and C++) are an amalgamation of many complex features that are present in simpler predecessors. Learning C for example will not only speed up your ability to learn Rust, but also leave you with a deeper understanding of the core principles.