To me, I don't even need a multi-threaded system to want Rust's ownership system.
Too many defects that I've encountered in the past have been centered around the detective work that goes into whether or not you happen to want spooky action at a distance.
Ah, in this instance we've created a list with objects in it and someone somewhere else is modifying it. This is causing the defect.
But in this instance we've created a list with objects in it and then someone is creating new deep copies of those objects so that someone somewhere else can no longer modify it. And THAT is causing the defect.
Rust makes this process significantly more explicit (although, I suppose someone could go a little crazy with RefMut and/or &mut and you end up back in the same place where you started with other lang).
The fact that this also makes threading much easier is very much welcome to me.
It's a nice idea, but I find the conceptualization/implementation of it to be rather inelegant. It feels like it overcomplicates and goes a long distance to achieve the same effect as an affine type system. It makes reading and writing and conceptualizing about the code that much more annoying. I don't want to be forced into thinking about imperative code in terms of objects and ownerships, that's way too opinionated for my tastes.
I find it much comparable to how modern C++ template metaprogramming goes to great lengths to achieve the same capability as a dependent type system, but again it's somehow even more annoying and grating to read and write than the most proof-laden example of something like Idris.
I don't want to use a language that feels like an amateurish hackjob. Just give me something approximate to ocaml syntax with low level memory control and an affine type system. Please. That's what I want Rust to be. Not a frankenstein's monster that seems in direct competition with C++ to be the most needlessly complicated and ugly language possible.
> It's a nice idea, but I find the conceptualization/implementation of it to be rather inelegant.
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion and sense of style. Our world is better off for the one that you hold.
> Just give me something approximate to ocaml syntax with low level memory control and an affine type system.
Eh, the beggar cannot also be a chooser. Your desire may be good, but no one is compelled to make it a reality. Our environment experiences a glut of frontend and backend libraries for building your own programming language. As well as guides aplenty to show you the way.
Oh sure, I don't mean to imply a helplessness to have such a language. I only provide context to say what I wish Rust was, in order give an abstract picture of the scope of problems I have with the language.
Too many defects that I've encountered in the past have been centered around the detective work that goes into whether or not you happen to want spooky action at a distance.
Ah, in this instance we've created a list with objects in it and someone somewhere else is modifying it. This is causing the defect.
But in this instance we've created a list with objects in it and then someone is creating new deep copies of those objects so that someone somewhere else can no longer modify it. And THAT is causing the defect.
Rust makes this process significantly more explicit (although, I suppose someone could go a little crazy with RefMut and/or &mut and you end up back in the same place where you started with other lang).
The fact that this also makes threading much easier is very much welcome to me.