Traits are weird

[@alskidan]

A longer version would be much appreciated 😊

[@mitchbet]

Great video, would love a longer version

[@jamesl5149]

There is definitely a discoverability issue with traits. If you're working on a trait heavy API like Axum it can be really perplexing why your code won't build - and the IDE doesn't offer any suggestions. At least, mine doesn't. Maybe RustRover will do a better job

[@avatar098]

I started thinking of modules as their own type. Traits are part of the module as much as any other struct / function that is defined.

[@wojciechrazik]

Shouldn't the trait be in the same scope as the macro? Maybe the good practice should be to always expose the trait? Please record longer video with explanations!

[@JohnSmith-ni4cs]

Traits are indeed weird. Perhaps do a video on how to organize code using traits for people that are used to thinking in the OOP way?

[@jahongirrahmonov7323]

You left out one "lbalbalba" at 2:12 lmao

[@markmcdonnell]

This issue of a trait having to be imported is so annoying in Rust

[@agustindiaz3361]

good video! thanks for it some constructive feedback: I think this had a lot of intro and little explanation + conclusion. I think it could be improved by going a bit faster in the beginning and then explaining deeper

[@sus7801]

why is this?

[@JohnPywtorak]

I was wondering the same, but thinking is it related to being buried in a macro and that’s why it needs to be in scope.

[@dmitriidemenev5258]

It is actually a useful behavior because then it's easier to understand where methods come from. It's better for the reader.

[@sus7801]

@@dmitriidemenev5258 I think it's kinda cringe, I'd hate to have to have a class which implements an interface, use that class in another file...then have to import that interface anyway, feels a bit leaky / breaking encapsulation

[@dmitriidemenev5258]

@@sus7801 The point is that you can implement (local) traits for external crates. And traits can use the same method names.

[@sus7801]

@@dmitriidemenev5258 you can still get name collisions though, although I do guess I sort of understand, blanket implementations would break a lot of code, not an ideal solution though

[@greggoog7559]

Programmers are really weird. Does anyone need all that odd jargon?