.png)
a lot of Rust's features honestly seem really nice in comparison to C(++) but to be frank, the language feels massively unapproachable. you think the C++ STL is weird and bloated? Rust is way fucking worse. from a newcomer like me's perspective it really feels like you have to chain together half a dozen cryptically abbreviated standard library functions, methods, and macros to get just about anything done.
is this really the case? I don't know, but the Rust Book sure makes it seem like it. so I'll be sticking with C(++) for a while, it looks like.
This is my major issues with Rust, it's built along lines specifically to accommodate some of the worst antipatterns of modern programming; it's Java but worse. core+std is somehow bloated and incomplete at the same time so while you can't do anything remotely useful without invoking cargo (and there's no useful way to manage crates without using cargo, meaning you're automatically and permanently tied to Rust's package repo system so a left-pad issue is inevitable) the cognitive load of std is way more than it should be for something so functionally incomplete! Beyond that, so much functionality is pushed into attributes because the language itself is poorly designed, and attributes explicitly exist to escape the language strictures, meaning that every single program is full of adhockery that needs to be learned beyond, separate from and often against the core language.
Rust exhibits every design badness of Java coupled with the notational badness of modern C++. Add to that that the only thing the Rust community seems to think is important in a language is memory safety, no matter how B&D and unmanageable the implementation, and you're left with something I do not want to use. And that's a shame because as you say there is a lot worthy there! Rust could have been a good language, I was very excited when it was new!
