Programmers don't read, they skim in half the time, then auto-complete in their mind with false assumptions!

Ouch! And just in time for New Year's resolutions. Thanks!

Is there a name for this behavior? Sounds like something that is categorized as a cognitive bias?

I'm confident that this does not only apply to programmers :)

It's the cognitive bias cognitive bias (the idea that every random mistaken behavior can be categorized as a congnitive bias).

And then try to write a GUI in Rust.

The state of that art is improving quickly: https://github.com/hecrj/iced

Maybe the state of the art for immediate mode GUIs, but not everyone is hopping onto that bandwagon.

Doesn't do localization or integration with assistive technologies of the host platform, does it?

No not yet.

That would explain so many of the comments you read on HN and Reddit!

hey get out of my head

> maybe the site's reading time estimator is broken?

All of them are. I first started disliking Medium for just that reason.

half-hours is only the compilation time.

Sarcasm aside, the Rust compiler has gotten a lot faster (and parallelizes better) over the last year thanks to Nicolas Nethercote and others.

Another thing few people realize is that the "incremental" compilation mode that's the default for debug builds can also be enabled for release builds!

In CI, something like sccache can help a lot (using the GCS or S3 backend). It makes GitHub Actions' two-core limit almost bearable. Almost.

I worked my way through the entire article, typing in each code example. Took me about 3 hours.

Well, it does say "reading time"; I don't think the estimator expects people to write the article as well!

I'm guessing the code snippets are skewing the estimate.

If anything, code snippets take time to parse and understand what every word and symbol mean. I kept going over "traits" because I didn't get them at first.

Firefox' reader mode estimates it at 35-45, if that helps :-)

>maybe the site's reading time estimator is broken

No, it's just made for prose, not tutorials.

Yep, code is a lot of "words" which throws off the estimate. I need to address this, but I don't think completely ignoring code blocks is really the solution there.

Maybe you could estimate the reading time of a code snippet by taking the square root of the number of lines of code? I imagine that the larger the code snippet, the more irrelevant boilerplate it contains, so the square root might be a good way to model this

> maybe the site's reading time estimator is broken? sarcasm intended.

It was not rewritten in rust?