[0xdeafbeef]

What the point, though? You will get compiling code, but later you would need to reachitecture code to avoid violating rust rules.

[withinboredom]

Sometimes, you just need to know if an idea will even work or what it would look like. If you have to refactor half the codebase (true story for me once), it makes the change a much harder sell without showing some benefits. IE, it keeps you from discovering better optimizations because you have to pay the costs upfront.

[LoganDark]

In Rust, it's a lot easier to refactor half the codebase than it would be in another language. Once you're done fighting the compiler, you're usually done! instead of NEVER being sure if you did enough testing.

[aw1621107]

> Sometimes, you just need to know if an idea will even work or what it would look like.

I think what GP is trying to say is that the value of such exploration might be limited if you end up with something incompatible with "proper" Rust anyways.

I suppose it depends on how frequently "transition through invalid Rust while experimenting and end up with valid Rust" happens instead of "transition through invalid Rust while experimenting and end up with invalid Rust", as well as how hard it is to fix the invalid Rust in the latter case.

[eru]

Can't you usually just throw some quick referenced counted cells in there, to make the borrow checker happy enough for a prototype without refactoring the whole code base?