rustlings-solutions-5 VS rust-orphan-rules

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/

i think you've found what i'm looking for! https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings

I would recommend rustlings as a way to get used to semantics. It starts from absolute basics but it gave me a more intuitive understanding of the language.

go along with Rustlings https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings

rustlings — Small exercises to get you used to reading & writing Rust code!

I had finished this Udemy course, which was a bit too fast towards the end but still enjoyable, I read THE BOOK and done the Rustlings (here are my old solutions and here the new ones).

You will get used to it when you write more Rust code. Read the book, implement some exercises and watch some tutorial YT videos, everything will make sense eventually.

Check out rustlings. Simple exercises with writing rust code, introducing new concepts along the way.

There's an official "book" that you can look up online. It goes through Rust step by step, like a tutorial. Alternatively there's the rustling's course where you learn Rust by doing small exercises. I have only ever looked at the book, which is fantastic. But if you know a bit of C and some sort of class-system like in OOP or Haskell's typeclasses you can just look up the syntax when you need to, it is really easy. Also, the compiler warnings/errors usually tell you what you need to do in order to fix your error (especially for simple stuff in the beginning) so often you don't even need to google the issue.

Rustlings might be useful to you: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings

Well, unless someone comes up with better, compatible rules, the orpan rules are gonna stick around.

Additionally there are other issues with rust currently. Compile time code (ala constexpr) is not up to par with C++20 (not really close). The const generic aren't as powerful as C++20 which added non primitive non type template parameters (though with you stuck with C++14, it actually is significantly better than what you have, again, if you're going to use C++, just use 20). Generics accepting closures is a bit more of an ordeal in rust, compared to C++. Also C++'s Duck Typed templates allow for some uncharacteristically strong typing compared to what is expressible in Rust generics currently. Now, duck typed templates do have major downsides, for example the entire feature of concepts is completely irrelevant in rust, but required for sane DTT type bounds, but they also have major upsides. Rust currently doesn't have "negative trait bounds", basically "This objected does not implement this trait, or std::enable_if> or the equivalent concepts implementation. Rust also doesn't have trait specializations, basically template specialization. Do note all features I've talked about to this point have nightly options, they just are at various stages of being stable/complete. Another issue is the orphan rule, though this is kind of a problem in C++ too in some respects, and that's unlikely to change drastically, since there are legitimate reasons for it's existence. For a lot of code none of these things are big deals, others they are, which is why you find inconsistent feed back on these issues.

Not that simple... hence why Orphan rule is still in-place. The struct wrapper was implemented in Rust as a temporary safe work-around. However, they are making progress on a solution: https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules/issues/1

That's still not an entirely complete explanation because there's more nuanced situations which aren't completely foreign but are foreign enough that if allowed, two crates could write the same impls. Some of the definitions are still unofficial as far as am I'm aware. For the best reference I’ve seen so far see this for more details.

In our crate the compiler doesn't know when calling MyTrait methods on MyStruct whether to use the implementation defined in crate 3 or crate 4! Rust has a set of orphan rules to prevent this situation from happening.

Sadly because of the rusts orphan rule you cannot implement a Trait on a Type where you do not own one or the other. So, apart from upstream contributions your only options are either a new Trait or a new Type.

If anyone is looking for additional background about orphan rules, check out https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules