Vorner's random stuff

The dark side of ergonomics

Disclaimer: The topic I’m going to write about is somewhat controversial and potentially unpopular. My intention is not to troll or provoke flame wars or to hurt anybody’s feelings. Don’t let my disagreement with something discourage you. If you and people like you didn’t do such an overall great job with Rust, I wouldn’t bother disagreeing about anything. My intention here is to share a different point of view and to initiate a legitimate discussion, not an attack. Therefore I’ll ask for something. Disagree with what I write about if you wish, but try to consider it. And if you have a strong urge to comment, do comment, but maybe try to give the feeling a 30 minutes to cool down. I have these feelings too and I promise I’ll try to do the same ☺ (I’ve been re-reading this very article for the past few hours already).

Despite having an experience with wide range of computer languages, including C++ and Haskell (both strong influences to Rusts design), I found Rust hard to learn. Sometimes I grind my teeth about something the compiler doesn’t let me do. Despite that, I didn’t put ergonomics as a wish in any poll. In fact, if I was to take a poll right now, I’d probably be against further ergonomics initiatives. Rust never did anything seriously evil to me, which I probably can’t say of any other language I’ve used on a real project. It has it’s never-ending stream of paper cuts, but they stay just that.

Maybe you think I’m crazy. Why would anyone not want their language easier to learn and use? Maybe you think I’m an old grumpy who is against all the new things out there to have. Maybe you’d be partially right about both of these. Maybe I just have dealt with more bugs than I like and have seen far too many things broken and I’m over-paranoid. That’s what years of C++ (and other programming, to lesser extent) do to you. After all the time juggling chainsaws, I’m afraid to change anything that is provably not a chainsaw, in a fear it might turn into one.

But apart from these, I think ergonomics is an double-edged sword. I see another Rust goals more important. It’s its robustness, or confidence or zero-bug abstractions, or how to call it. Simply the fact that if my code compiles, there’s a very good chance it is correct and that if I put it into production today (without further testing), I’ll find it running there tomorrow. That is quite unique, at least between mainstream-ish languages.

On a very high level, ergonomics and this robustness necessarily go against each other. I reach robustness by refusing broken and suspicious programs at compile time. I reach more ergonomics by accepting more programs and hoping they do what the author have meant, so I don’t have to bother the author with a compilation error.

So, while I know a lot of people want more ergonomics, I’m not sure it is what they need.

This is not only a theory. Let’s do few case studies. These are kind of extreme cases that better illustrate the idea. These are obvious cases where this exact ergonomic improvement would hurt the overall experience.

I don’t claim I’ve seen any serious proposals to change exactly this. But subtler things exist, and it’s when I get the strong urge to comment on RFCs. Not to discourage the authors, but because I have a different point of view. Both of us want the best for Rust, we just have a different opinion on what it is.

Empty values

Everyone knows about NULL-access bugs or their language-specific variants (None type has no attribute in python, NullPointerException in Java, etc). Let’s not talk about the seriousness of the consequences. In whatever language, accessing such empty value is a bug. OK, there are languages where you get some kind of default value (0 if you expect a number, an empty function if you call an empty value), but that’s likely a bug too. If you rely on that and do it on purpose, better place a comment there.

Rust has its own variant (unwrap on None panic). How comes it happens less often in Rust than in Java? Because in Rust, the action to access something that might be None is explicit. Typing of the .unwrap() makes me acknowledge it could be None. You know, the effect „Oh crap, I better handle that too, right?“. It forces me to fix my mental model, and not write the bug, instead of fixing the bug later on.

But would automatic coercion of Option<T> into T where needed (some kind of auto-unwrap that would panic if it is None) be more ergonomic? Yes, it probably would. Who wants to put all these unwraps and matches in their code?

Every time I have to handle possibly empty value or an error, I remember how many times that saved me a multiple-hour bug hunts on systems I don’t have direct access to instead of thinking how that is so unergonomic.

Implicit flow control

Yes, this is about exceptions. In many cases they are more comfortable than having to handle it on every level. You just don’t have to care about what and if it might go wrong, right?

Wrong. Especially if you have a language without a garbage collector and you don’t consider exceptions to be fatal or almost-fatal (basically making them into Rust’s panic), you have a very hard time. And this hard time has a name. It’s Exception safety.

You see, the fact that you don’t have to explicitly handle errors is outweighed by the fact that you have to structure your code in a way every point in it might throw an exception at you. Basically, not caring what may go wrong means you have to assume that everything might. It means you either have to do complex rollbacks in RAII guards (or finally blocks in other languages), or have all your state consistent at all times. Even if you want to provide a weak exception safety, you have to make sure that at least your destructor won’t blow up as a result of the mess of a state you left when the exception flew by. I don’t even talk about the magic the compiler needs to do behind the scenes to make the RAII guards work.

And while C++ has the noexcept keyword, that can annotate a function or method, it is virtually useless. It doesn’t check at compile time the function doesn’t throw. It just turns every exception that would be thrown into an abort of the program at runtime. Furthermore, there’s no indication of except/noexcept semantics on the caller side and removing the keyword from the function’s signature won’t make all the places that rely on the noexcept semantics not compile.

Compare it with Rust and it’s ? operator. Yes, you have to explicitly propagate all „exceptions“ upwards. Manually. That’s a gruelling work. And you have to actually think about doing that. But when you add or remove fallibility from your function, the compiler will point at all the places where the change matters.

If anyone ever proposes to have a context where they propagate automatically, I’ll be in the first line, trying to explain it is not a good idea. Yes, I’ve worked on a project that mandated strong exception guarantee everywhere, even on std::bad_alloc exceptions. I don’t want more of that. I want to see the places that can „throw“ and the places that are „throw-safe“. And not only in code I wrote, but in all the code I have to read when something goes „Ooops… this was never supposed to happen“.

Automatic type conversions

Automatic type conversions make programmers’ lives easier by not forcing them to write type-casting, right? No stupid .into() anywhere. Or so the C++ committee thought so long ago (it introduced the explicit keyword since then ‒ funny how many things can be „solved“ by adding yet another keyword nobody learns to use).

This one is quite recent experience for me. This prolonged one of my bug-hunts by about 3 hours, because it led me down the wrong rabbit hole.

Let’s say you have this class. It came from 3rd party library, so you don’t really know it, but after desperate whole-day battle with the stupid piece of program, you instrument the library with debug-prints in addition to your own code. You know, because nothing besides the debug prints works ‒ the code crashes at a random time after running for few minutes at full speed (stepping through it in debugger would take forever), the crash manifests long after the corruption causing it happens, it doesn’t happen in valgrind at all (which hints at some kind of race condition), rr gives up on you because of some oddball syscall nobody but you ever thought of using this exact way, trying to prove your code correct only filled heaps of papers with notes without success and after all you’re grateful that you have at least the debug prints and can then grep through the multi-gigabyte log file. Then add more prints, let it run for few minutes, rinse, wash and repeat. At least debug prints are reliable, if nothing else. After all, all is good, because the program crashes reliably on your own computer, that basically means its down to having more patience than the bug.

class Token {
	uint32_t value;
	// Some fields omitted
	operator bool() const {
		return value;
	bool operator ==(const Token &other) const {
		return value == other.value;
	bool operator !=(const Token &other) const {
		return !(*this == other);

(edited to fix trivial compilation errors)

What do you think this bit of code will do?

const Token tok1 = getUniqueToken(), tok2 = getUniqueToken();
if (tok1 != tok2) {
	std::cout << tok1 << "!=" << tok2 << std::endl;

If you correctly guessed that it’d print 1!=1, then consider yourself a member of the „I’ve seen more broken code then I care to count“ club. And that’s when all the relevant code is together. It wasn’t for me, and it wasn’t exactly this code, so I went hunting why the token was always 1 ‒ which it wasn’t. And if you didn’t guess, consider yourself lucky and here’s the hint: there’s the operator bool (autoconversion to bool) and no operator << for this type.

Anyway, this ergonomic improvement broke even the all-reliable debug prints for me at the time when I was least likely to appreciate the joke. I don’t consider the C++ committee to be incompetent people. On the contrary. And even them couldn’t foresee all the consequences, so let’s learn from the history.

The actual message

As a conclusion, I’d like to say that I’m not against ergonomics per se. I’m just a bit afraid of it, because I’ve seen too many ergonomic improvements in different languages to backfire, either separately or when interacting with other language features. I’m not claiming C++ (which dominates two of the above examples) is in any way ergonomic, I’m claiming these features were introduced in the name of ergonomics and I reached for it mostly as a good source of these (since I use mostly C++ lately, Rust unfortunately coming second in line).

So whenever I see new ergonomic proposal, I’m a bit sceptical. Rust works great compared to the above. And, you know, don’t fix what ain’t broken.

I’m probably too afraid of disrupting the quite good and unique properties of Rust. It’s not that I’d be against everything and anything. For example, NLL is great in my opinion, because it passes a „litmus test“ ‒ even when trying hard, I didn’t come with a scenario where it could mask a bug.

I fully understand that my balance of what is worth and what isn’t is severely skewed by living too long in the face of danger from both complex, long-lived code bases and not very cooperative languages. I probably see monsters everywhere, even where they are not. But isn’t this what Rust is for?

The message here I’d like to convey is not to stop the ergonomics initiative ‒ I don’t think being unergonomic without a good reason is a nice thing, but to accept that ergonomics has downsides and needs to be considered with the advantages. Rust is the language that’s being put into rough places. I’d rather it gives me all the heavy and uncomfortable weapons I need, than to try to calm me down that there are no monsters in the cellar. I’ll take a never-ending stream of paper cuts over one atomic bomb in a blue moon.

If I ever commented on your proposal with something like „But what if this really arcane set of conditions meet, and a new version of dependency does that at the same time, won’t this cause BOOOM?“, then it’s just me being scared of atomic bombs. Because I have a very good talent of getting myself into these arcane conditions. It’s an attempt to help fix the proposal so the bugs don’t crawl through any cracks.