- triple sulk
- Sep 17, 2014
-
|
Do you mean the former doesn't excuse the latter?
I agree that the official documentation (or at least "the Book", I can't speak for API docs) is pretty awful. It's written in a conversational style that just feels condescending to me. A few very smart and experienced programmers I know have been put off learning Rust until something like an O'Reilly book is released, because "the Book" is hard to follow, full of weird examples, and sometimes even hard to follow. What's frustrating is that pull requests like these, which do nothing but improve the clarity of a passage, were rejected because the primary docs author refused to accept style input. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/19929 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/20439
rust-by-example exists and is much better, but it's hardly a way to learn the language ex nihilo, in my opinion.
Rust is what happens when you let a bunch of Ruby developers design and document a language (José Valim being an exception) so it's not surprising that they're smug assholes who don't take criticism well. I'm in agreement with you that the conversational tone of "the Book" as it is referred to is dumb. I haven't looked extensively at the documentation in a while but the last I remember it was badly organized, but that may have also been because of the lack of clarity about crate usage at the time.
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 14:39
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 21:23
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 14:39
