I am not hating on Rust. I am honestly looking for reasons why I should learn and use Rust. Currently, I am a Go developer. I havenāt touched any other language for years, except JavaScript for occasional front end work and other languages for OSS contributions.
After working with almost every mainstream language over the years and flitting between them on a whim, I have fallen in love with Go. It feels like āhomeā to me - itās comfortable and I enjoy working with it and I have little motivation to use anything else. I rage every time I get stuck working with JavaScript because dependency management is pure hell when dealing with the intersection of packages and browsers - by contrast, dependency management is a breeze with Go modules. Iāll grant that it can suck when using private packages, but I everything I work on is open.
Rust is intriguing. Controlling the lifecycle of variables in detail appeals to me. I donāt mind garbage collectors but Rustās approach seems far more elegant. The main issue for me is the syntax, specifically generic types, traits, and lifetimes. It looks just about as bad as C++'s template system, minus the latterās awful compiler errors. After working almost exclusively with Go for years, reading it seems unnecessarily demanding. And IMO the only thing more important than readability is whether it works.
Why should I learn and use rust?
P.S.: I donāt care about political stuff like āBecause Google sucksā. I see no evidence that Google is controlling the project. And Iām not interested in āBecause Go sucksā opinions - it should be obvious that I disagree.
You should learn Rust because you think that the language is intriguing and that controlling the lifespan of a variable is an interesting feature.
Not even ācontrolling the lifespanā but, ābeing whipped by your machine when you are not careful with the lifetimes.ā
Iāve used Rust professionally for five years now, and it is too hard to give a full answer in any single comment. There are so many reasons. You are right, it is a lot more elegant. You can do things with its type system which you canāt in any other mainstream language, because of ownership. Itās really a life changing experience, so Iād suggest you just try it out, build a project in it, and see what itās like. You wonāt regret it.
I strongly disagree about generics / syntax. IMO theyāre fine and youāll learn to love them.
The high level answer Iāll give is that Rust is a language that is designed from the ground up to not make many sacrifices. You can use it for systems programming where you canāt use a garbage collector, or for high level stuff like an API server. It feels high level while also being as low level as you need it to. Its errors are absolutely fantastic. Same with the tooling and package manager.
You should really just see for yourself.
I strongly disagree about generics / syntax. IMO theyāre fine and youāll learn to love them.
True! Rustās design is very orthogonal. The generics, lifetimes and other similar features work very well together.
The main issue for me is the syntax, specifically generic types, traits, and lifetimes.
After working almost exclusively with Go for years, reading it seems unnecessarily demanding.
Like someone else said, this is a complex subject to answer. The syntax looks perplexing and frustrating, until it doesnāt. These days, Rust syntax is nowhere in my thought while coding - it like when you drive, you are thinking about where you want to go rather than about manipulating the controls.
Why should I learn and use rust?
Rustā's rules are about enforcing memory safety. But it also ends up forcing you to write better programs than what you imagined you could. Itās hard to describe that feeling - you have to experience it. That alone is a good reason to learn it - even if you end up not using it in the future.
Rustās unique design also leads to many design patterns not normally seen in most other languages. Thatās also worth exploring.
I have fallen in love with Go. It feels like āhomeā to me
Thatās a perfectly good thing. Itās hard to find that sweet spot. However, donāt let that stop you from exploring the alternatives. You might find ideas you could use in Go.
Rustās unique design also leads to many design patterns not normally seen in most other languages.
Iāve heard quite a few people talk about how good they realised Options were, and that they now try to use that same pattern in other languages like Python. It really does teach you new tricks!
I donāt know how useful Options are in Python, with its duck typing. Python had something similar to
Option::None
all along -None
. Itās possible to use None in Python is very idiomatic and surprising ways. RustāsSome
andNone
are tagged unions. And Rust forces you to address them - unlike Python.Well, with the newer optional typing, it became
def foo(name: Optional[str]) -> Optional[str]: ...
and nowdef foo(name: str | None) -> str | None: ...
(No need to import Optional) Itās quite nice.As for Rust, recall that Result is also a very similar union type. I think a lot of the aversions people have had to static typing have mostly just been about poor expressiveness in clunky type systems.
I have been programming in Python for nearly two decades now. This is the first Iām hearing about the
Optional
improvements to Pythonās type hints/annotations. Thanks a lot for this. Iām going to take a re-look into type hints.As for Rust, recall that Result is also a very similar union type.
Iām aware that Rust enums, including Result, are tagged unions. However, my understanding is that itās not like that in Python. Pythonās duck typing is enabled by typing the values, rather than the variables. A variable can point to a value of any type. Am I getting this wrong? Or is
Optional
different somehow?
Go is a great language. I used it a few times when dealing with bugs in open source programs. And though I never used it besides that, I could spot and fix these easy issues fast.
Rust is not like that. The syntax is a little harder to read and a lot of widely used libraries use complex macros to ease their users lives.
But:
I cannot count the times rust has saved my ass.Examples:
Sqlx checks my sql files against a local test-db and always errors, when my scripts miss parameters after changing the sql file.
I have to use a complicated mess of an API at work to get the data I need and I now use a 50-60 element enum that tells me exactly, what I got back from the API-calls.When I write code, itās typically in Go or Python.
The reason Iām curious to learn Rust is specifically to contribute to existing projects that are written in Rust.
If youāre interested in working on Lemmy code, for example, youāve gotta learn some Rust to do it.
It looks just about as bad as C++'s template system, minus the latterās awful compiler errors.
Iād say theyāre incomparable. Oneās a Turing-complete programming language, the other is not much more powerful than generics in a language like C#. Thatās not to say that your impression is incorrect - both are significantly more complex than what Go had for the longest time (no generics), and likely more complex than what Go has now (though I havenāt looked much into Goās new generics system to be honest).
If youāre looking for a reason to use Rust, I recommend picking it up and doing some projects in it. There are many, many reasons why one would choose Rust for a project (security, correctness, needs to be low level, preference, etc) and many documented scenarios where companies have found switching to Rust to be beneficial to them, but at the end of the day, only you know what your requirements and preferences are.
It seems like you prefer highly readable code. This is a pretty subjective thing though, and you may find that Go is more readable to you than any other language. I would disagree, but again, itās a matter of preference. For some, C++ is the language they find most readable. Regardless, the only way to know if youāll like it and want to use it is for you to pick it up and use it, and develop your opinions based on experience. If you find that spending time learning it will be a waste after trying it out for a little bit, then you have your answer.
For some, C++ is the language they find most readable
Iām skeptical about that statement! lol.
If I didnāt know people who loved the language so much, I would be too.
In purely practical terms, Rust gives more precise resource control (deterministic memory management instead of garbage collection). In language geek terms, Rust has a more precise type system that lets you capture and enforce program invariants at compile time, in ways that Go doesnāt. That makes refactoring more reliable among other things. Is it worth it? Thatās a variant of the age old debate between static and dynamic type systems.
I would say language theory is an important branch of CS, that anyone trying to be a strong programmer should know something about, just like they should know how the quicksort algorithm works or that the halting problem is undecidable. If Rust isnāt to your fancy, you might try Haskell, which has a similar (maybe even fancier) type system, but is garbage collected and has a different execution model. Try learnyouahaskell.com for a good tutorial.
Disclosure: I use Haskell but for now havenāt yet used Rust. Rust is interesting, I just havenāt gotten to it yet. I do like Ada.
Every language is just a tool for the job. From what I understand Go is great for multithreaded web or backend applications. Now if you were a game developer you would most likely not be using Go as it is not industry standard and the support just isnāt there. Rust also intrigued me but as my current job is windows only I mostly write code in C# or Powershell.
What I do like about Rust are things like exhaustive matching and memory safety. I dislike cargo for the same reason I donāt like other languages with package management, supply chain security risks.
Pick the best tool for the job and use whatever language you enjoy the most.
idk if youve heard but its memory safe
Iād have to be living under a particularly large rock to be unaware of that. āItās memory safeā isnāt that big of a deal to me. Even building concurrent systems, memory safety has never been a significant issue for me with Go.
Go is memory safe due to its garbage collection. Which adds a decent overhead generally.
Rusts memory safety is enforced at compile time and therefore has zero cost at runtime.
For a system level language this can be really important.
In my book, āmemory safetyā also means avoiding data races. AFAIK Rust prevents most or all races by enforcing ownership and lifetime of pointers.
i think go is also considered memory safe due to the garbage collector
Ironically, I learned Rust first, and later looked at Go. I found a lot of the syntax needlessly ādifferentā. That being said, itās still a decent language. Point being, a lot of the weirdness subsides once you understand why itās there.
Personally, I donāt actually care about the lifecycle and memory management stuff. What I like about Rust is:
- An enforced error type that is very convenient to use with the ? operator. No more err != nil spam, but same amount of safety
- ADTs with a host of wonderful features, like exhaustive match statements. Go enums are horrendously basic, letās be honest
- NO NIL!! Non existence is expressed with an Option type that, like the error type, comes with many conveniences
- Generics from the start, meaning you donāt have older code that throws away type safety anywhere
- Traits/Interfaces can be implemented for foreign/external types and types can implement external interfaces (duh)
- Great tooling, good formatting tools, good LSP, that kind of stuff. Golang has that too
Why learn Rust? For the same reason everyone should learn different languages. To learn new concepts and see new perspectives on old problems. Itāll make you a better developer even in your previous languages.
There are no reasons to learn it apart from getting familiar with some of the concepts in it or working on a rust project.