ruThinker is a lightweight programming IDE (Integrated Development Environment) for Rust programming language, it is fast and easy to use.
ruThinker configures entire Rust programming development environment automatically, so it is quite suitable for beginners. After installation, users can write and run Rust programming programs instantly. It is a zero configuration IDE.
ruThinker supports Rust programming language syntax highlight. It has an esay to use code editor, concise user interface.
Other features available:
-Find/Replace
-builtin terminal
-code comment/uncomment
I have developed game engines and large-scale projects using C++ and Lua, and I've also worked on ultra-large projects with JavaScript and TypeScript. I'm currently building a large-scale original project in Rust. I've used Java, C#, and Go to some extent as well.
Someone in the comments asked me to comment on Python too. But since I haven’t worked on any large Python projects or studied it deeply, I won’t pretend to be an expert here — I don’t want to show off my ignorance.
Here are my thoughts on different languages:
---
### 1. **Rust**
When writing code in Rust, I can work for 8 hours straight without debugging. If the final compilation succeeds, there's almost no debugging needed. The mental overhead is minimal.
Rust is a great teammate — unreliable coders can't even get their code to compile. Code reviews only need to focus on business logic, not language-level bugs.
---
### 2. **C++**
In C++, I can also write for 8 hours straight without debugging. But after (hopefully) successful compilation, the debugging time is massive. Mental burden is significantly higher.
Only when you're comfortable with modern C++ features like C++11/14/17 does it become somewhat manageable.
Finding a good teammate is tricky — a bad coder can still compile code but leave behind memory safety and thread-safety issues. Code review becomes extremely exhausting.
---
### 3. **JavaScript**
With JavaScript, I must debug constantly during those 8 hours. While getting something running is easy, debugging large-scale JS projects involves heavy cognitive load.
JS developers can be extremely skilled at the top end, but at the bottom, the floor is incredibly low. Finding reliable teammates is critical.
Code reviews are so costly that many teams just give up. In the current environment in China, most people are chasing quick money anyway — just hire more front-end devs and testers, and grind out a relatively bug-free product through endless 996 work. Let it be a pile of spaghetti — who cares?
When talking about JS as a "terrible" language, we should look at similar scripting languages like Lua. Compared to JS, Lua is practically the ceiling for scripting languages:
1. **Clear positioning** — it’s a scripting language meant to be small and focused.
2. **Elegant design** — no confusing language choices.
3. **Excellent performance** — unlike JS, which required a super-engine like V8 to solve its performance issues.
Lua just works beautifully for what it was designed for.
---
### 4. **Java / C# / Go**
These garbage-collected (GC) languages are much more beginner-friendly. Strong typing and runtime checks make them easier than C/C++/Rust, and they avoid the maintainability nightmares common in weakly-typed scripting languages.
In fact, I think learning one of these GC'd, strongly-typed languages is actually *easier* than JavaScript — especially for large-scale projects.
However, GC can be a major issue in certain domains — like game engines. It’s not just the performance cost; it's the unpredictability of the GC process itself. As programmers, we’re stuck treating it like a black box.
That’s why languages like C, C++, and Rust — which minimize runtime overhead — remain essential. Rust technically has automatic memory management via RAII, but crucially, memory usage remains under your control. With GC’d languages, the runtime size also matters — take WebAssembly, for example. C and Rust produce tiny WASM binaries. Some people insist on using Go for WASM — go ahead, but first check how big the compiled output is.
---
### 5. **C Language**
C is surprisingly simple. You can treat it as a high-level translation layer over assembly — close to hardware, with no fancy abstractions. It's a general-purpose mid-level language near the bottom of the stack.
Its generated binaries are simple, and its ABI isn’t complicated. These traits guarantee its place in the ecosystem.
I believe Rust can do everything C can — but depending on the use case, Rust might be overkill. Its learning curve is steep, and low-level use often requires `unsafe`, making C sometimes the better choice for simplicity.
---
## On Rust
**Rust’s downside**: the learning curve is steep. At first, just getting a program to compile feels difficult. But once you get used to it, the mental load drops dramatically.
In C++, advanced features like RAII, templates, static dispatch, and metaprogramming are rarely used in real-world projects. Many developers treat C++ like an object-oriented version of C with vtables.
But Rust *forces* you to learn and think about these concepts. That’s why I say: learning Rust will make you a better C++ programmer. Conversely, if you already master modern C++ features, picking up Rust won’t be hard.
People tend to stick to their comfort zones. Once you’ve mastered a language, it’s hard to accept others. Before flaming Rust, try calming down, exercising your brain a bit, and you may start to see the brilliance in its design.
---
Rust is not a theoretical language born in isolation — its designers clearly have deep engineering experience. Rust is practical, not academic.
Its innovation lies in ownership and lifetimes — powerful mechanisms that enable zero-cost memory and thread safety.
Other Rust features borrow heavily from other languages: package management inspired by npm, channels from Go, traits from Haskell, plus strong enums, closures, and smart pointers. None of these were invented by Rust, but Rust brought them together cohesively without over-designing.
From this perspective, Rust stands firmly on the shoulders of giants.