DEV Community

Discussion on: That About Wraps It Up For Actix-Web

 
ghost profile image
Ghost

I think I misspoke (misswrote?) before, my point was that I've found that in Rust API docs are not bare or just enough to say you documented; for I've seen in Rust API docs are taken seriously and are closer to Python official documentation that a document just for the dev team. Documentation usually is not a separate thing, that someone else does, is closer to the code in the sense that is never out of date and if there is code there is documentation, there are not undocumented bits. I couldn't survive by Django documentation alone, even tho is amazing there was a lot of features undocumented, a lot of times I had to check in the code itself for some edge cases 3rd party docs: tutorials, guides, etc. where frequently necessary; even more so with Flask and SQLAlchemy. That hasn't happen to me with Rust so far.

Thread Thread
 
codemouse92 profile image
Jason C. McDonald • Edited

I couldn't survive by Django documentation alone, even tho is amazing there was a lot of features undocumented, a lot of times I had to check in the code itself for some edge cases 3rd party docs

That's a failing of Django documentation, not indicative of a merit of Rust's. ;)

Thread Thread
 
ghost profile image
Ghost

I'd say it isn't any more "technical" than Javascript docs are to a desktop

That's why I used quotes, I couldn't find a better adjective.

That's a failing of Django documentation, not a merit of Rust's.

Was not meant as that, just an example to illustrate that even the better documented SW has it's flaws, those doesn't make them badly documented. Which is of course subjective at some point. And if you read until the end of the paragraph

That hasn't happen to me with Rust so far.

Clearly I mention Django to illustrate the difference to me between both and that Django is more friendly to newcomers yet somehow incomplete and Rust more complete yet maybe less inviting to newcomers. That's what I meant to target audience.

Tutorials (and books)

That's what I mistakenly called Documentation before in opposition to API docs which obviously are documentation too. Of course you need documentation, nobody will use a library and even less a framework looking nothing but the code, that would be insane. Not even if the library is only for consumption of the author, not if expect to maintain some sanity.

Thread Thread
 
codemouse92 profile image
Jason C. McDonald

Aha, following you now. :)

Thread Thread
 
ghost profile image
Ghost • Edited

the interesting thing is, English is my second language, and that shows how, when you are not comfortably enough with the language you end up "coding" big convoluted responses to explain something simple. And misunderstandings happen. And then you try to solve it with more comments. haha, so meta. :D

TODO list:

  • added, more English.
 
deciduously profile image
Ben Lovy • Edited

most projects seem to be solo projects (made by 1 or maybe 2 guys); perhaps is because of how new is the ecosystem?

I think this is exactly right.

for the standard Rust libraries I never felt the need for something besides The Book and the API docs

I agree - these resources are done extremely well, to the point of replacing supplementary material I've needed getting up to speed in other environments.

when I talk about "documentation" I'm wrongly referring to extras, like tutorials, step by step guides and alike

I have also found that there's less of this type of documentation in general, but when it does exist it tends to be high quality, and like you say the fall-back API docs are great too. Diesel is a great example, I think their getting started page is well done and they provide other guides too, but it took time to produce after publishing the crate due to bandwidth.