Not easier than C++? I dunno, C++ looks like a clusterfuck of complicatedness. I'm mostly coming from F#, with some C. Rust's ownership system just makes sense and seems to perfectly answer the questions I have when using C APIs. Rust, for me, looks a lot like what I've wanted when writing performance F#. I'd commit atrocities to have optional ownership in F#.
Every time I've fought with the borrow checker, it's because I've had a serious design or conceptual flaw. (Well, apart from syntax/compiler questions). Since you can derive most of the rules just by thinking about it, I find it grows on you quickly. I'll be very saddened if the borrow checker actually ends up being hurtful for adoption overall. Though I agree if you cannot handle pointers or think about memory, Rust will be difficult. So yeah, scripting only devs will have trouble. But! It's better than them writing the code in C.
Rust overall seems like that. There's less random stuff and things work mostly by thinking about safe, zero overhead abstractions, and what falls out from those mandates. Mostly.
Now, maybe if I was a modern C++ programmer, I'd find the effort about the same. OTOH, C++ systems don't end up as safe as Rust ones, so I'm not sure there's a perfect comparison to be had. Maybe that'll change as C++ has started catching up feature wise, but someone I doubt it.
Overall, I think Rust is easier to use than C++ but not easier to write than C++. Writability is a specific facet of usability, which is hurt by strict upfront checks.
Writability is a worthy thing to improve: GHC's -fdefer-type-errors feature is a good example. I hope Rust improves its writability in the future.
I think just like other languages, writing Rust leads to a familiarity with what the compiler wants. Then you spend more time thinking about design and the problem at hand, and less fighting the compiler. I think Rust will ultimately be easier than C++ to write because while there are tricky concepts to master, there should be much fewer of them than C++ has.
I disagree. While you get familiar with what the compiler wants (certainly I did, after using Rust for more than 2 years now), it's just that Rust compiler wants more from you than C++ compiler does.
The number of tricky concepts largely do not affect writability, because you don't have to use them. The number of mandatory compile time checks do, because you have to pass them.
One way to improve writability is a mode to turn off some of checks while you are exploring. I already gave a good example from Haskell. When you are done exploring, you can turn on all the checks.
Hmm, so like a Rust flag like --allow-leaks or --corrupted-ownership?
It seems like editor support would totally dominate here. That is, realtime checking of lifetimes and autocomplete/inline errors should be a much bigger improvement in write times than some way to emit invalid code.
Thank you, you've managed to nicely express my feelings on Rust. For coming up with a polished end product that works, Rust is easier, but for bashing on your keyboard to get out your ideas it can be a little frustrating compared to even C++.
Every time I've fought with the borrow checker, it's because I've had a serious design or conceptual flaw. (Well, apart from syntax/compiler questions). Since you can derive most of the rules just by thinking about it, I find it grows on you quickly. I'll be very saddened if the borrow checker actually ends up being hurtful for adoption overall. Though I agree if you cannot handle pointers or think about memory, Rust will be difficult. So yeah, scripting only devs will have trouble. But! It's better than them writing the code in C.
Rust overall seems like that. There's less random stuff and things work mostly by thinking about safe, zero overhead abstractions, and what falls out from those mandates. Mostly.
Now, maybe if I was a modern C++ programmer, I'd find the effort about the same. OTOH, C++ systems don't end up as safe as Rust ones, so I'm not sure there's a perfect comparison to be had. Maybe that'll change as C++ has started catching up feature wise, but someone I doubt it.