I found the article, or better opinion. My bed that it wasn’t a Finn, but an America, Alan Ward. The metaphor is taken from him, while he explains in his article much better than me. Please, see his opinion on page 48-49 in the linked PDF of the current Full Circle issue #215 below:

Full Circle #215

I find his metaphor very apt.

@Flipper, if you just learn from one master, you cannot become a master in the field. As I said above: relying heavily on the compiler, even when this may be the best „teacher“, does not make you - I do not speak about you personally, but you in general, so all programmers - a good programmer. This is my major critic about Rust, while I do also understand its advantages.

Thank you for your explanation and I understand it well, as well the advantage to find bugs quicker (which however does not mean that a safe code cannot be also a bad code). However, I do think that writing safe code without being guided by a compiler is indeed a skill. And the question how safe the code written with the help of the compiler will be is another interesting one. Perhaps we will find out in the future.

In my opinion, Rust is a language dictated by the compiler rather than one that allows you to use your brain, knowledge, and skills to deepen your understanding. Rust is essentially a programming language with training wheels. Unfortunately, the preference to finish tasks quickly is nowadays the mainstream. The understanding of the deeper stuff falls behind.

A related example from real life: bike tyres that have a flat. Less and less people can change the tyres on their own, and even do not understand the construction and characteristics of different tyres, only believing what the vendor in the shop is telling them. Bad surprises then happen.

Alas, when there is no difference between unsafe wrapper in Rust and C, then why learning Rust, if one wants to go for managing the memory manually? Especially when considering the complex way of coding in Rust? Another problem: going the easy way and forgetting the tricky parts - if Rust allows for unsafe code, but it is safer to put it into a « safe » mode, so why I need to take the burden and deal with unsafe code? This will evidently lead to the situation that less and less unsafe blocks will be used, which finally leads to a situation where the programmer forgets the in and outs of manual memory management. You can see it as the principal aim of writing memory safe code, but to me it is also a way of « delearning » by learning. I see here the reason why so many young programmers are opting for Rust, because manually managing the memory in larger projects like in C is a question of knowledge and experience which does not come in one day. I also doubt that following just the compiler is a good approach. I agree totally with your last points though! Coding should mean to have fun and be the same time mentally challenged due to complex algorithms or demand for better code in general.

Give it a try. Perhaps they may give you at least a hint.

I like the description by a Finn who said: Rust is like a car with automatic, while in C (or Zig) you need to change the gears. In Rust you literally follow the compiler, which allows many young developers to program at low level, while C demands more time to avoid bugs. It is up to each person what he/she prefers. I would prefer to control myself the stuff and learn the in and outs of memory management.

Pcmanfm? Nemo? However, if one does not need a GUI I would suggest ranger, nnn or alike.

Did you contact TUXEDO Support Centre?