alt Hacker NewsThe "idiomatic Rust" thing rubs me the wrong way. If someone writes Rust that compiles and works, that's Rust. full stop. Telling people it doesn't count until it's "idiomatic" is just gatekeeping. It quietly says you're not a real Rust dev until you've put in years and absorbed all the unwritten rules, which shuts out exactly the people who are still learning. Everyone writes "non-idiomatic" code when they start. That's not a failure, that's how learning works. Even if being written by LLMs, the devs still will need to improve their knowledge to keep the codebase.
Replies
Not really. Rust is designed to be written in a certain way. If you machine translate C into Rust you end up with a load of `unsafe` code that follows the C style but consequently doesn't get any of the benefits of being written in Rust.
Imagine if you translated assembly to C++, but you just did it by putting everything in `asm("...")` calls. That's not idiomatic C++ and you wouldn't get any of the benefits of using C++.
That said, the Rust code I skimmed actually did look surprisingly idiomatic. It wasn't full of `unsafe` like I would have expected.
I beliebe q3k's comment should be read as "[even if it's acceptable to the most stringent of gatekeepers] then this would be churn for the sake of churn."'
Not that only idiomatic Rust is appropriate.