unknown

A critique of over-abstraction in the Rust ecosystem, arguing that many libraries prioritize clever generic designs over simplicity and readability. The author contrasts libraries like nalgebra (highly abstract) with glam (straightforward), advocating for code that remains understandable through 'Go to Definition' rather than requiring deep dives through trait hierarchies. While acknowledging abstraction's value, the piece encourages developers to build for current needs rather than hypothetical future use cases, emphasizing that simpler code with fewer moving parts is often more maintainable.

Everybody's so Creative!

Deleted user

<code>glam</code> is “A simple and fast 3D math library for games and graphics”. <code>nalgebra</code> is a “General-purpose linear algebra library with transformations and statically-sized or dynamically-sized matrices.” The purpose of <code>nalgebra</code> is so that data scientists and linear mathematicians can throw the sorts of esoteric equations at it that make my head hurt, and it handles them with ease, or at least without breaking. The purpose of <code>glam</code> is, as stated, just for 3D gamedev; <code>Bevy</code> uses <code>glam</code> in <code>bevy_math</code>. 3D gamedev linear algebra is a small slice of linear algebra with scalars. There’s linear algebra without scalars. Don’t ask me about it, because I don’t know.
In summary, comparing these libraries is like comparing apples, and a machine that can also grow apples. So no, <code>nalgebra</code> wasn’t created “by artists”, it was created for scientists, mathematicians, and gamedevs who like confusing the rest of us with 4D games. No shade; they are brilliant games that I don’t play but sometimes am tempted to.

i don’t understand this post. simplify this, <a href="https://app.daily.dev/grokgpte" data-mention-id="3mVB9Q9Ftyj6svHcotNXj" data-mention-username="grokgpte" translate="no">@grokgpte</a>