Hacker News Reader

Comment by steveklabnik | Hacker News Reader

> Rust assumes the developers learning about it have specific goals: namely, to evaluate Rust vs. C/C++.

We don't assume that. From https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/second-edition/

> This book is written for a reader who already knows how to program in at least one programming language. After reading this book, you should be comfortable writing Rust programs. We’ll be learning Rust through small, focused examples that build on each other to demonstrate how to use various features of Rust as well as how they work behind the scenes.

That is, we assume programming knowledge, but not specific programming knowledge. Many people come to Rust not knowing C or C++.

View on HN

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I didn't mean to imply that the Rust maintainers assume any prerequisite knowledge of C/C++.

I rather meant that the goal of someone learning Rust "in anger" is for that person to quickly decide if Rust is the best language to use to solve the problem they have. And, if Rust is even a candidate in their solution-space, then usually C and C++ (and sometimes also Go or D or C#) are the other candidates the learner is considering learning. They're Rust's "neighbours" in its solution-space.

And so, Rust's documentation is well-written, but it's well-written specifically for this type of person learning Rust "in anger", with the goal of evaluating the language against its neighbours at the same time they're learning it. Such a person wants to see Rust's design-decision guts spilled out on the floor before them, so they can move on if those decisions are not to their liking.

This doesn't mean the documentation isn't approachable to people who don't have any such points of comparison! But just like a movie can be enjoyable for both kids and adults on different levels, Rust's documentation has both a "teaching you Rust" level and another "justifying Rust's departures from the Average Low-Level Language" level.

Thanks for the clarification; sorry for misunderstanding :)

For what it's worth, rust's often introspective approach to documentation and community is one of its defining virtues in my opinion.

Growing up, I was constantly taught new things, without often being taught why. They "why" of things is just as important to me as the "how".

So thanks for all you've done and continue to do!

I think derefr was inferring (or imagining?) a subconscious need to defend certain decisions, even if C and C++ are not prerequisites.

As a post-structuralist, I generally approve of reading the author's stated intentions and responding, "Yes, well, that's one interpretation." :P

Reply on news.ycombinator.com