For reals though adopting a functional style of programming makes rust extremely pleasant . It’s only when people program in object oriented styles that this gets annoying.
No loops, and no state change make rust devs happy devs.
I mean yah. That’s what it takes. But like when I try to write code around Arc<_> the performance just tanks in highly concurrent work. Maybe it’s an OOP rust skill issue on my end. Lol.
Avoiding this leads, for me at least, to happiness and fearless, performant, concurrent work.
I’m not a huge fan of go-lang but I think they got it right with the don’t communicate by sharing memory thing.
Oh, I did not know that. Well, it makes sense that it has a heap allocation, as it becomes more or less global. Though not sure why the atomic operations are needed when the value inside is immutable.
I just started learning rust like two days ago and I haven’t had too many issues with OOP so far… is it going to get considerably worse as the complexity of my projects increases?
The thing with OOP, particularly how it’s used in GCed languages, is that it’s all about handing references out to wherever and then dealing with the complexity of not knowing who has access to your fields via getters & setters, or by cloning memory whenever it’s modified in asynchronous code.
Rust has quite the opposite mindset. It’s all about tracking where references go. It pushes your code to be very tree-shaped, i.e. references typically¹ only exist between a function and the functions it calls underneath. This is what allows asynchronous code to be safe in Rust, and I would also argue that the tree shape makes code easier to understand, too.
But yeah, some of the patterns you might know from OOP will not work in Rust for that reason. You will likely need to get into a different mindset over time.
Also just in case: We are talking OOP in the sense of the paradigm, i.e. object-oriented.
Just using objects, i.e. data with associated functions/methods, that works completely normal in Rust.
¹) If you genuinely need references that reach outside the tree shape, which is mostly going to be the case, if you work with multiple threads, then you can do so by wrapping your data structures in Arc<Mutex<_>> or similar. But yeah, when learning, you should try to solve your problems without these. Most programs don’t need them.
Hmm, not sure, if I’ve heard of it. I’m guessing, we’re not talking about simply drawing a UML class diagram…? Is it for figuring out which object will have to clean up which other objects, in non-GCed languages?
Worse in the sense of more errors, sure, but as you go you’ll pick up more of the rust patterns of thinking and imo it’s very worth it. It’s an odd blend and can be a bit verbose but I definitely prefer it to a pure OO or pure functional style language personally
Skill Issue.
For reals though adopting a functional style of programming makes rust extremely pleasant . It’s only when people program in object oriented styles that this gets annoying.
No loops, and no state change make rust devs happy devs.
I’m a OOP programmer.
I wrap everything within
Arc<Mutex<>>.I’m a happy dev.
I mean yah. That’s what it takes. But like when I try to write code around Arc<_> the performance just tanks in highly concurrent work. Maybe it’s an OOP rust skill issue on my end. Lol.
Avoiding this leads, for me at least, to happiness and fearless, performant, concurrent work.
I’m not a huge fan of go-lang but I think they got it right with the don’t communicate by sharing memory thing.
You mean mutex? Arc allows synchronous read only access by multiple threads, so it’s not a performance bottleneck. Locking a mutex would be one.
Arcis not free, and the extra atomic operations + heap allocations can become a bottleneck.Oh, I did not know that. Well, it makes sense that it has a heap allocation, as it becomes more or less global. Though not sure why the atomic operations are needed when the value inside is immutable.
How can you otherwise keep track of an object’s lifetime if copies are made concurrently?
I mean it could be Mutex, or Rwlock or anything atomic. It’s just when I have to put stuff into an Arc<> to pass around I know trouble is coming.
I just started learning rust like two days ago and I haven’t had too many issues with OOP so far… is it going to get considerably worse as the complexity of my projects increases?
The thing with OOP, particularly how it’s used in GCed languages, is that it’s all about handing references out to wherever and then dealing with the complexity of not knowing who has access to your fields via getters & setters, or by cloning memory whenever it’s modified in asynchronous code.
Rust has quite the opposite mindset. It’s all about tracking where references go. It pushes your code to be very tree-shaped, i.e. references typically¹ only exist between a function and the functions it calls underneath. This is what allows asynchronous code to be safe in Rust, and I would also argue that the tree shape makes code easier to understand, too.
But yeah, some of the patterns you might know from OOP will not work in Rust for that reason. You will likely need to get into a different mindset over time.
Also just in case: We are talking OOP in the sense of the paradigm, i.e. object-oriented.
Just using objects, i.e. data with associated functions/methods, that works completely normal in Rust.
¹) If you genuinely need references that reach outside the tree shape, which is mostly going to be the case, if you work with multiple threads, then you can do so by wrapping your data structures in
Arc<Mutex<_>>or similar. But yeah, when learning, you should try to solve your problems without these. Most programs don’t need them.OOP also has object ownership hierarchy structures. Which object owns which other object, is a question always worth answering.
Hmm, not sure, if I’ve heard of it. I’m guessing, we’re not talking about simply drawing a UML class diagram…? Is it for figuring out which object will have to clean up which other objects, in non-GCed languages?
It will become more complex when you start needing circular references in your datastructures.
You’ll be fine. You will learn the lifetime stuff and all will work out. It’s not that bad to be honest.
Worse in the sense of more errors, sure, but as you go you’ll pick up more of the rust patterns of thinking and imo it’s very worth it. It’s an odd blend and can be a bit verbose but I definitely prefer it to a pure OO or pure functional style language personally