Mixed Feelings About Rust Syntax

I'm having mixed feelings, but it's really just... vibes I guess. Overall I've found using `addr_of` to be "kind of ok". Obviously `&raw const a.b` is more built-in, but I'm not 100% convinced it carries its weight, and it looks "kind of funny". Though I do want to make architectural noise more ergonomic in general; I don't subscribe to the philosophy that we ought to add syntactic salt just because it's unsafe, in fact I think that's quite counterproductive. I think for me the bigger challenge is that I'm still not 100% clear on the "mental model" for validity requirements of references vs raw pointers.

A screenshot shows a developer discussing Rust syntax, specifically `addr_of`, `&raw const`, references, and raw pointers. The joke is the hesitant, overly nuanced reaction to language design: the author finds the syntax acceptable but awkward and questions whether extra syntax is justified by safety concerns. It is used as a reaction to express complicated, ambivalent feelings about a technical decision. EN: A screenshot shows a developer discussing Rust syntax, specifically `addr_of`, `&raw const`, references, and raw pointers. The joke is the hesitant, overly nuanced reaction to language design: the author finds the syntax acceptable but awkward and questions whether extra syntax is justified by safety concerns. It is used as a reaction to express complicated, ambivalent feelings about a technical decision.

• @ithueti / 14112 2024-09-27