Hemera :nixos: :ms_snow_leopard: on Nostr: Every time I read an article about shortcoming of a tool, I wonder how much of that ...

Every time I read an article about shortcoming of a tool, I wonder how much of that is ego and how much of it is an actual shortcoming?

Maybe it's a sign my perfectionism is going down, but different tools being imperfect in different ways does not make them bad or less useful?

Like, I just read an article about the #rust borrowchecker not being able to prove a valid program because it doesn't look 'through' functions. And this making it 'worse' in user experience.

And this feels fairly off to me. Sure the checker could try to do whatever you wish it did. But it doesn't, and so you have to adapt.

Like, not everything needs to fit what you expect from a tool I think.

It is fair to not use that tool (i.e. Rust) if you find that annoying, but I struggle hard with this mindset. Where rather than adapting to use a tool to its fullest, people just bang their head against it repeatedly saying "look how bad it is".

#rustlang