Hemera :nixos: :ms_snow_leopard:<p>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?</p><p>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?</p><p>Like, I just read an article about the <a href="https://meow.social/tags/rust" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>rust</span></a> borrowchecker not being able to prove a valid program because it doesn't look 'through' functions. And this making it 'worse' in user experience.</p><p>And this feels fairly off to me. Sure the checker could try to do whatever you <u>wish</u> it did. But it doesn't, and so you have to adapt.</p><p>Like, not everything needs to fit what you expect from a tool I think.</p><p>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".</p><p><a href="https://meow.social/tags/rustlang" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>rustlang</span></a></p>