The whole "book" seems to be AI-generated, or at least very heavily AI-edited. Would at this point it not be easier to just tell developers to use their LLM of choice to achieve the same (or, likely, better) result?
Random chapter so you can judge the quality for yourself: https://microsoft.github.io/RustTraining/python-book/ch09-er...
And the non-stop bullet list slop just looks horrible: https://microsoft.github.io/RustTraining/python-book/ch01-in...
Seems like this isn't limited to the Python book though, and others have the same issues: https://github.com/microsoft/RustTraining/issues/14
This tutorial is very bad, and the time estimates are pretty absurd.
The explanations are extremely short and I imagine a new Rust dev would not understand what is going on.
The Brown tutorial is far better, compare its section on mutables and ownership to this.
And yes, this entirely thing is AI generated. Why was this created?
Jeez, what a hostile crowd. I personally am just glad companies like Microsoft, that infamously used to charge for every material they put out, have been providing free learning resources to newcomers like this, quality notwithstanding.
I am just extremely grateful in general for anyone who takes the effort to put something out there for public education for free. If you are one of those, irrespective of how your content is appreciated, please take my heartfelt thanks. You guys are at the forefront of restoring my faith in humanity.
What pathetic garbage AI slop. I apologize to everyone who clicked and wasted their time.
I can't recommend Rust enough. It has such a bad reputation, but it isn't that hard. I truly think it's easier than many languages with much less-intimidating reputations.
That said, one of the places Rust loses people pretty early on is an example they have early in this intro:
```rust
let parts: Vec<&str> = "a,b,c".split(',').collect(); // Vec<&str>
```
I never understood why Rust didn't / couldn't make functions able to return different outputs depending on context. If you chain `.split()` to something else that can take an iterator, you want to pass an iterator. If you don't, ~99% of people would probably rather have a collected array. And if you want an `it`, you could just do `.it()` or this is when type inference could be overloaded and you could do:
```rust
let it: Split<'_, char> = "a,b,c".split(',');
```
I think Rust should've put more effort into making the thing newbs want to do the default, and easy ways to get the most efficient thing for experts.
```rust
let parts = "a,b,c".split(); // Gives an Array/Vec
let count = "a,b,c".split().count(); // Optimized stream, no array allocation
```
It could work like that, and I think almost everyone would be happy. But it doesn't.
Instead, they've created a language that I think could have been nearly as easy as a scripting language, but isn't.
It obviously isn't only collection iterators this applies to. There's dozens of very small places that add up and make what - I believe - is an otherwise relatively easy and sensible language feel too far out of reach for too many people.
`Option<T>`, `Result<T, E>`, `Future<T>` all impact linguistically how you can interact with a Type. I think the impacts of this don't make sense to people who've never encountered this before. `Arc<T>`, `Rc<T>`, `Mutex<T>`, and `RwLock<T>`, etc also have similar consequences.
Not only do people just not get it. But also, the type system quickly becomes "scary". To do pretty basic concurrency, you need to build a pretty "scary" looking type if you come from Python.
Which is why I'm a psychopath and attempting to create a language where it defaults to the things most people want, and it's very easy for experts to override.
> Cargo vs pip/Poetry
I know this section is really just a comparrison of pyproject.toml and cargo.toml, but who on earth would use pip instead of UV as a drop-in replacement in 2026? Though calling it a comparrison is a bit of a stretch considering there is no text.
On top of that, I imagine that a lot of Python programmers who actually do use pip would also use requirements.txt and not pyproject.toml