undefined

points

[-]

Which is one of the reasons why Rust is considered to be targeting C++'s developers. C++ devs already have the Stockholm syndrome needed to tolerate the tooling.

by MyOutfitIsVague21 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Rust's compilation is slow, but the tooling is just about the best that any programming language has.

by adastra2210 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Slow compared to what? I’m still scraping my head at this. My cargo builds are insanely fast, never taking more than a minute or two even on large projects. The only ahead of time compiled language I’ve used with faster compilation speed is Go, and that is a language specifically designed around (and arguably crippled by) the requirement for fast compilation. Rust is comparable to C compilation, and definitely faster than C++, Haskell, Java, Fortran, Algol, and Common Lisp.

by 9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

deleted

by GuB-4218 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

How good is the debugger? "edit and continue"? Hot reload? Full IDE?

I don't know enough Rust, but I find these aspects are seriously lacking in C++ on Linux, and it is one of the few things I think Windows has it better for developers. Is Rust better?

by mdaniel16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> How good is the debugger? "edit and continue"?

Relevant: Subsecond: A runtime hotpatching engine for Rust hot-reloading - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369642 - June, 2024 (36 comments)

> Full IDE?

https://www.jetbrains.com/rust/ (newly free for non-commercial use)

> find these aspects are seriously lacking in C++ on Linux

https://www.jetbrains.com/clion/ (same, non-commercial)

by steveklabnik14 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> debugger

I've only ever really used a debugger on embedded, we used gdb there. I know VS: Code has a debugger that works, I'm sure other IDEs do too.

> edit and continue

Hard to do in a pre-compiled language with no runtime, if you're asking about what I think you're asking about.

> Hot reload

Other folks gave you good links, but this stuff is pretty new, so I wouldn't claim that this is great and often good and such.

> Full IDE

I'm not aware of Rust-specific IDEs, but many IDEs have good support for Rust. VS: Code is the most popular amongst users according to the annual survey. The Rust Project distributes an official LSP server, so you can use that with any editor that supports it.

by izacus9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

So the answer is very clear "no" on all accounts, just like for other languages built by people who don't understand the value of good tooling.

by frollogaston52 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Rust has solid tooling. There's a default package manager that works well, unlike many other languages including C++ and somehow Python. Debugging is fine. Idk why you expected edit-and-continue, it's not like you get that in C++ either.

by adastra2217 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

No idea because I never do that. Nor does any rust programmer I know. Which may answer your question ;)

by frollogaston47 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

"Rust devs don't use debuggers" isn't a good answer. The one time I used Rust for some project like 7 years ago, I did have to use a debugger, and it was fine.

by galangalalgol17 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Also modern c++ with value semantics is more functional than many other languages people might come to rust from, that keeps the borrow checker from being as annoying. If people are used to making webs of stateful classes with references to each pther. The borrow checker is horrific, but that is because that design pattern is horrific if you multithread it.

by zozbot23420 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Stockholm syndrome

A.k.a. "Remember the Vasa!" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17172057

by MobiusHorizons21 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Things can still be slow in absolute terms without being as slow as C++. The issues with compiling C++ are incredibly well understood and documented. It is one of the worst languages on earth for compile times. Rust doesn’t share those language level issues, so the expectations are understandably higher.

by int_19h19 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

But it does share some of those issues. Specifically, while Rust generics aren't as unstructured as C++ templates, the main burden is actually from compiling all those tiny instantiations, and Rust monomorphization has the same exact problem responsible for the bulk of its compile times.

by const_cast17 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Rust shares pretty much every language-level issue C++ has with compile times, no? Monomorphization explosion, turing-complete compile time macros, complex type system.

by steveklabnik14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There's a lot of overlap, but not that simple. Unless you also discount C issues that C++ inherits. Even then, there's subtleties and differences between the two that matter.

by oreally8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Classic case of:

New features: yes

Talking to users and fixing actual problems: lolno, I CBF

by shadowgovt21 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I thorougly enjoy all the work on encapsulation and reducing the steps of compilation to compile, then link that C does... Only to have C++ come along and undo almost all of it through the simple expedient of requiring templates for everything.

Oops, changed one template in one header. And that impacts.... 98% of my code.