The things I found quite difficult or impossible in Rust were to me pretty basic patterns for modularity and removing duplication that it's really shocking that these complaints are not more common.
I currently have but two hypotheses for why.
First, the second problem I mentioned only comes from using tokio, which causes your top-level program to secretly be using a defunctionalized continuation data type, derived from where exactly in other files you put your await's, that might not be Send. If you're not using tokio, you won't experience that issue.
Second...I was kinda told to just give up on deduplication and have lots of copy+pasted code. This raises the very uncomfortable hypothesis that Rust afficionados are some combination of people who came to Rust early and never learned traditional software design and don't know what they're missing, and people who were raised on traditional good software engineering but then got hit with Rust's metaphorical baseball bat of lack-of-modularity over and over until they got used to being hit with a baseball bat as a normal pain of life.
I don't like either of these explanations (esp. with tokio seeming quite dominant), so I'm awaiting an explanation that makes more sense. https://xkcd.com/3210/
This is definitely not the case and is unnecessarily insulting.
The truth is that some things are harder in Rust but a) often those things are best avoided anyway (e.g. callbacks), and b) it's worth the trade-off because of the other good things it allows.
Surely as a Haskell user of all things you must understand that sometimes making things harder is worth the trade-off. Yeay everything is pure! Great for many reasons. Now how do I add logging to this deeply nested function?
I know that it's insulting! And it doesn't make sense, because I generally think Rust programmers are smart people. But right now, it's the only explanation I've got, so it is alas necessarily insulting. So please, please, please give me a better explanation that actually makes sense.
> The truth is that some things are harder in Rust but a) often those things are best avoided anyway (e.g. callbacks), and b) it's worth the trade-off because of the other good things it allows.
This sounds like the seeds of a better explanation, but it needs a lot more to actually suffice. E.g.: why are callbacks best avoided anyway, when they're virtually required for a large number of important programming patterns? (In more technical language: they're effectively the only way to eliminate duplication in non-leaf-expressions. In even more technical language: they're the way to do second-order anti-unification.)
> Surely as a Haskell user of all things you must understand that sometimes making things harder is worth the trade-off. Yeay everything is pure! Great for many reasons. Now how do I add logging to this deeply nested function?
And this is a great illustration of the difference. First, you will seldom find Haskell programmers trying to argue that, actually, things like deeply-nested logging that everyone wants are actually "best avoided anyway." Second, you'll actually get a solution if you ask about them -- in this case, to either use MTL-style, to use a fixed alias for your monad stack, or that unsafePerformIO isn't actually that bad.
BTW, similar to my unpleasant conclusion for Rust above, I have another unpleasant conclusion for Haskell: Haskell is incredible for medium-sized programs, but it has its own missing modularity features that make it non-ideal for large programs (e.g.: >50k lines). But this is a much smaller problem than it sounds because Haskell is so compact that, while many projects can be huge, very few individual codebases will need to approach that size.
Many things are plainly not permitted, either because the borrow-checker isn't clever enough, or the pattern is unsafe (without garbage collection and so on).
Many functional/Haskell patterns simply can not be translated directly to Rust.
A deeply-baked assumption of Rust is that your memory layout is static. Dynamic memory layout is perfectly compatible with manual memory management, but Rust does not readily support it because of its demands for static memory layout.
A very easy place to see this is the difference in decorator types between Rust and other languages like Java. Java's legacy File/reader API has you write things like `new PrintWriter(new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter("foo.txt")))`, where each layer adds some functionality to the base layer. The resulting value has principal type `PrintWriter` and can be used through the `Writer` interface.
The equivalent code in Rust would give you a value of type `PrintWriter<BufferedWriter<FileWriter>>` which can only be passed to functions that expect exactly that type and not, say, a `PrintWriter<BufferedWriter<StringStream>>`. You would solve this by using a template function that takes a `T where T: Writer` parameter and gets compiled separately for every use-site, thus contributing to Rust's infamous slow build times.
It would be perfectly sane, and desirable for application code, to be able to pass around a PrintWriter value as an owned pointer to a PrintWriter struct which contains an owned pointer to a BufferedWriter struct which contains an owned pointer to a FileWriter struct. You could even have each pointer actually be to a Writer value of unknown size, and thus recover modularity.
In Rust, there is sometimes a painful and very fragile way to do this: have each writer type contain a Box<&dyn Writer>, effectively the same as the Java solution above. This works, except that, if one day you want to add a method to the Writer trait that breaks dyn-compatibility, then you will no longer be able to do this, and will need to rewrite all code that uses this type.
FWIW I write primarily rust, and I do not agree with the advice given in your second point, so I’d take it with a grain of salt were I you.
Oh please. I came to Rust late, after using plenty of other languages. I have never had a problem with “modularity”. You express surprise that these issues haven’t been talked about more, well the null hypothesis is that you are just not very good at Rust and it hasn’t clicked for you - that’s fine, I doubt I would be very good at Haskell. But don’t insult us, and don’t assume your experience is de facto everyone’s and we’re just in denial. It’s incredibly arrogant.
Please respect the fact that I do not understand how one can like Rust without giving up caring about modularity.
I have pretty good reason for thinking this is a possibility. Directly, because the Rust experts I asked for help did in fact advocate giving up modularity. Indirectly, in that I've seen something similar but much stronger in a different language. That culminated in a conversation with several of the creators of that language, in which they argued their language was great for generic programming...while revealing some pretty basic holes in their understanding of generic programming (while calling me a "Haskell weenie," among other abuse). I am very confident in my conclusion about this other language community and not interested in getting into the details of this event. I am just sharing where I'm coming from, in not immediately dismissing this idea as too absurd to consider even when I have no other hypothesis.
I acknowledge that you feel personally insulted by me having a hypothesis that requires a large group of people behave in ways I consider strange. I have evidence for that hypothesis, and have been unable to find a better one. I hope you can see how the comment I am responding to crosses an extra line and is directly personally insulting.
I would very much like to come away from this discussion no longer believing that Rust programminh is at odds with modularity. I have shared some fairly basic and detailed criticisms, the ones I still remember after a year out of the language. Perhaps your can play a role in offering solutions to them -- or admit that these are indeed problems your hadn't noticed before or had gotten used to
