5 ms·

#[you_can::turn_off_the_borrow_checker]

cherryblossom00 5y ago
More discussion on r/rust: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/s9az4y/you_canturn_off_the_borrow_checker/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/s9az4y/you_canturn_of...
mikewarot 5y ago
If I can turn that stupid thing off, it might be worth learning Rust after all.
- udbhavs 5y ago
  In that case you're better off using OCaml with the native target.
- jaxrtech 5y ago
  ngl the borrow chicker is miles better than it used to be in terms of implants cit behavior and just dealing with more "natural" scoping patterns. It sure isn't perfect, but at the end of the day, I trust the borrow checker more than my logic to make sure that multi threaded applications do not have threading issues...
- Arnavion 5y ago
  You're not going to learn anything useful by turning it off. If that's what's stopping you, don't bother.
Waterluvian 5y ago
I’m surprised. I would have assumed that the borrow checker is critical to ensuring your code can even be compiled.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
errantmind 5y ago
Why would you want to turn it off? I've been writing Rust code for a while and only struggled with this for the first few weeks. The borrow checker is useful and, while I don't mind some unsafe Rust here and there, I wouldn't want to have a Rust dependency that completely disabled it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- maxbond 5y ago
  This is a curiosity which explicitly asks you not to use it for production. Just an exercise in hacking on the language and making it behave in ways it's not supposed to. I agree with you; the borrow checker is much of Rust's value proposition, and if one wanted to do without it, then Rust isn't the right tool for their particular needs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ncmncm 5y ago
If Rust is not to fizzle like Ada (which got overwhelmingly more investment than Rust has had) it needs a radically faster adoption rate. While several traps imperil Rust's wider adoption -- pathetic compile speed is another: consider JIT in the compiler! -- the borrow checker is an important roadblock for beginners. There is no practical need to enforce borrow checking on all debug builds: it suffices, for beginners, to know that a production build would fail. Forbidding any sort of testing until after the borrow checker is wholly satisfied generates pointless frustration. Can Rust really afford to drive beginners away? For Rust not to fizzle and die, it needs thousands to adopt it for each who already has. Saying "I persevered, you could too, given some backbone" is a recipe for failure. Is it strictly worse to (1) let beginners deal with borrow checking a little later in their process, or for (2) the language to fizzle and die? Dying is still a punishingly likely prospect. Network effects matter. I doubt that failing to achieve mainstream adoption would be good for Rust, for current Rust users, or the world. Everyone considering a language to learn has plenty of choices. A language rarely gets a second try.
- nynx 5y ago
  Almost every sentence in this comment is wrong. 1. The compiler has been speeding up a lot, it’s about as fast as C++ on large projects. 2. The borrow checker makes Rust usable by beginners. Imagine writing complex pointer code without it. In rust, a beginner can do that safely. 3. Rust is picking up a lot of steam. It’s getting adopted in a bunch of different industries. Rest assured, it’s not going to fail at this point.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Everyone was way more confident about the future of Ada, and with better reasons. If you imagine the borrow checker does not drive away a large majority of prospective users, you live in a dream world. If you imagine the still-slow compiler does not drive away users, you live in a dream world. Wishful thinking is always a poor substitute for corrective action.
    - nynx 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

More discussion on r/rust: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/s9az4y/you_canturn_off_the_borrow_checker/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/s9az4y/you_canturn_of...

mikewarot 5y ago

If I can turn that stupid thing off, it might be worth learning Rust after all.

udbhavs 5y ago
In that case you're better off using OCaml with the native target.
jaxrtech 5y ago
ngl the borrow chicker is miles better than it used to be in terms of implants cit behavior and just dealing with more "natural" scoping patterns. It sure isn't perfect, but at the end of the day, I trust the borrow checker more than my logic to make sure that multi threaded applications do not have threading issues...
Arnavion 5y ago
You're not going to learn anything useful by turning it off. If that's what's stopping you, don't bother.

Waterluvian 5y ago

I’m surprised. I would have assumed that the borrow checker is critical to ensuring your code can even be compiled.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

errantmind 5y ago

Why would you want to turn it off? I've been writing Rust code for a while and only struggled with this for the first few weeks. The borrow checker is useful and, while I don't mind some unsafe Rust here and there, I wouldn't want to have a Rust dependency that completely disabled it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
maxbond 5y ago
This is a curiosity which explicitly asks you not to use it for production. Just an exercise in hacking on the language and making it behave in ways it's not supposed to. I agree with you; the borrow checker is much of Rust's value proposition, and if one wanted to do without it, then Rust isn't the right tool for their particular needs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ncmncm 5y ago

If Rust is not to fizzle like Ada (which got overwhelmingly more investment than Rust has had) it needs a radically faster adoption rate. While several traps imperil Rust's wider adoption -- pathetic compile speed is another: consider JIT in the compiler! -- the borrow checker is an important roadblock for beginners. There is no practical need to enforce borrow checking on all debug builds: it suffices, for beginners, to know that a production build would fail. Forbidding any sort of testing until after the borrow checker is wholly satisfied generates pointless frustration. Can Rust really afford to drive beginners away? For Rust not to fizzle and die, it needs thousands to adopt it for each who already has. Saying "I persevered, you could too, given some backbone" is a recipe for failure. Is it strictly worse to (1) let beginners deal with borrow checking a little later in their process, or for (2) the language to fizzle and die? Dying is still a punishingly likely prospect. Network effects matter. I doubt that failing to achieve mainstream adoption would be good for Rust, for current Rust users, or the world. Everyone considering a language to learn has plenty of choices. A language rarely gets a second try.

nynx 5y ago
Almost every sentence in this comment is wrong. 1. The compiler has been speeding up a lot, it’s about as fast as C++ on large projects. 2. The borrow checker makes Rust usable by beginners. Imagine writing complex pointer code without it. In rust, a beginner can do that safely. 3. Rust is picking up a lot of steam. It’s getting adopted in a bunch of different industries. Rest assured, it’s not going to fail at this point.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Everyone was way more confident about the future of Ada, and with better reasons. If you imagine the borrow checker does not drive away a large majority of prospective users, you live in a dream world. If you imagine the still-slow compiler does not drive away users, you live in a dream world. Wishful thinking is always a poor substitute for corrective action.
  - nynx 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]