I get it there are people who want to play around and have language/compiler babysit them, but there are also people like me who want to see exactly what something is.

This is a false dichotomy when it comes to Rust. Despite everything I said and despite Lucy's complaint, there is nothing that actually stops someone from explicitly annotating the exact type when declaring a variable. It's just not required by the language, and most developers eventually realize that it's not actually useful.

You're right that these preferences are subjective, be although much of that subjectivity has more to do with how our past experiences have shaped what we're familiar with, rather than any intrinsic characteristics of person. By that I mean, someone who uses Rust enough will most likely come to like the way the general community styles its code, sooner or later. In the meantime you're welcome to do things in a way that suits your needs.

The only thing that Rust's type system is weak on is runtime reflection. There are ways to achieve it within Rust's type system, but it's considerably more work than what you get in Python and JavaScript. Imo the only reason to choose a language other than Rust for a greenfield project is if you have a strong need for runtime reflection all over the place and aren't very concerned about performance, threading, or avoiding entire categories of bugs that the Rust compiler protects you from.

There's a lot to be said for the scale of damage that can be done with something, especially relative to the effort needed to do that damage.

These days tech companies are doing enormous damage to people's brains (saturating our dopamine receptors to the point that many people have depression and executive dysfunction) to turn us all into consumption machines that can only find happiness by consuming content and buying commercial products and services.

Imagine how much more harm they'll do when they have direct access to our neurons, without even LED pixels as a buffer in between.

I don't agree with the previous poster. There's nothing wrong with diving in and figuring things out as you go, especially if that's a way that you commonly like to learn. Everyone has different learning styles, and Rust can fit all those styles.

The main thing to understand is you shouldn't let compilation errors discourage you. You will get a lot of compilation errors. And I mean A LOT. That's okay, it's normal, and it doesn't mean you're dumb or that Rust is an excessively difficult language. It generally just means that there's some new piece of the language for you to learn before you can take your next step.

When you run into compilation errors, just read the error message carefully and see if you can understand what the problem is. Often the error itself will tell you how to fix it, but you should take the opportunity to understand why the fix is necessary. In every case there's a reason that the language is putting limitations on what you're doing. It's to protect you from bad habits that other languages used to let you get away with. So understand what's bad about what you were doing and you'll rapidly grow as a developer.

If you can't figure out what's wrong from the compilation error alone, that's when it makes sense to turn to the book. The error messages will generally include a reference code which you can use to get more details on the nature of the error. Googling that will lead you to online discussions and maybe entries in the Rust book. Otherwise there isn't a real need to read through the book from front to back unless that's a way you like to learn.

no

You'd be right if the cavity is only compressing other organs inside the body without changing the overall volume, but I don't know why you seem to insist on making that assumption.

I thought it would be clear from my original description, via the analogy with lungs, that the cavity would not squish the internal organs but rather expand the overall volume of the body.

I think a long time ago a vicious cycle began in the advertising space where predatory ads had more incentive to pay for ad space, so sensible people start to perceive ads in general as predatory. Now no sensible advertiser that's trying to promote a legitimate product for legitimate reasons will do so by buying ad space, thus reinforcing the increasingly accurate perception that all ads are predatory.

The fact that it was discovered early due to bad actor sloppiness does not imply that it could not have also been caught prior to wide spread usage via security audits that take place for many enterprise grade Linux distributions.

Not enough people have been asking the real question: What was this DEI mayor doing on 9/11? How could he have let that happen? Does he hate America?

(/s shouldn't be necessary, but these days I can't risk leaving it out since reality has become indistinguishable from satire)

I'm sorry to have to tell you that Chris Diamantopoulos and Dino Stamatopoulos are two different people despite how incredibly similar their names are. And by "similar" I guess I mean "Greek".

I bet the most important factor in his healthcare is all the physical and mental exercise that he got from continuing to build houses for the underprivileged into his 90s.

Using visual studio code this only happens if the library has thorough type annotation. While that's becoming more popular, it's not enforced at the language level so lots of libraries have enormous gaps in the autocomplete.

I agree with this, the theory doesn't track very well unless the executives locked themselves into expensive long term leases for their offices and don't want to feel embarrassed that it's a wasted cost.

I think the more likely explanation is that the companies want to drive people into quitting so they can reduce payroll without being on the hook for unemployment insurance.