• JakeHimself@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year 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@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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

    • Boinketh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Beanie@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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

        • eth0p@iusearchlinux.fyi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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)

          • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year 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.