• @cabbage
    link
    English
    7111 months ago

    Sounds like Rust propaganda to me >:(

    • @JakeHimself
      link
      English
      4911 months ago

      Tbf, you have to be pretty far with Rust to get to a point where Rust’s compiler errors stop helping you (at least, as far as I’ve seen). After that, it’s pretty much the same

      • @philm
        link
        English
        2611 months ago

        Yep use a little bit more deeply cascaded generic rust code with a lot of fancy trait-bounds and error messages will explode and be similar as C++ (though to be fair they are still likely way more helpful than C++ template based error messages). Really hope that the compiler/error devs will improve in this area

        • @JakeHimself
          link
          English
          811 months ago

          Would know, I’ve never had a runtime error in Rust /s

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 months ago

            Can’t have a runtime error if you don’t have a compiled binary *taps forehead*

            (For the record, I say this as someone who enjoys Rust)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              111 months ago

              This is actually unironically a major benefit of Rust - compile time errors are supposed to be for dev mistakes and runtime errors supposed to be for user mistakes. Way easier to debug something at compile time instead of runtime.

        • @Beanie
          link
          111 months ago

          ‘it should pretty much never segfault’ uh, isn’t that the entire point of Rust? Unless you’re counting failing a bounds check as a segfault