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
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
Rust has better runtime errors, too. If you run a dev build, it should pretty much never segfault unless you use unsafe and will instead tell you what went wrong and where, no valgrind necessary.
Sounds like Rust propaganda to me >:(
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
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
Rust has better runtime errors, too. If you run a dev build, it should pretty much never segfault unless you use
unsafeand will instead tell you what went wrong and where, no valgrind necessary.Would know, I’ve never had a runtime error in Rust /s
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)
‘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
I’m confused by your comment. Yes, that is a major benefit of using Rust. That was my point.