I know scala a bit and rust only barely, but they seem like very different languages to me.
Scala tries to enable you to create whatever api you want, so it has many different flavours of magic to allow flexibility of expression. Predictably this is used and abused horribly by a community who can't come to a consensus on what good taste is.
Rust on the other hand makes you explicitly say everything that happens. Nothing will happen without you being aware of it, and that makes it wordy and feel more complex, but it's the kind of complexity of having to say everything you mean down to a much greater level of detail rather than the kind of complexity that arises when it's almost impossible to know exactly what is going on.
Rust and Scala are pretty much at opposite ends of the 'magic' spectrum.
> Nothing will happen without you being aware of it
This is exactly the opposite what I understood from the article that Rayon does. For example, it will schedule your code differently depending on the current conditions of the CPU. That kind of non-determinism is hard to deal with if you are doing something more complex than adding numbers. I imagine this is fine for building mathematical libraries, where you care about the result, not about the order of operations. But if you are interacting with external APIs, it's very hard to reason about this kind of parallelism.
This makes no sense to me. You are absolutely aware this will happen because you called Rayon's `.par_iter()` method!
The pitfalls of parallel and concurrent computing are well known, and you are correct should not use a data parallelism library for effectful actions whose order matters. But of course the same concerns can arise when using goroutines.
In contrast, Rust actually does guarantee an absence of data races, in rayon or in any other concurrency or parallelism library, whereas Go provides no such guarantee.
I think that data parallelism is a very much wrong tool if you are interacting with external APIs – that's in the realm of concurrency and asynchrony. (Check out the work on Futures-rs and Tokio, they are inspiring projects!)
Rayon requires the callbacks it calls to be `Sync`. That means that they are declared to be safe to run across threads. That means that the API it provides explicitly requires the calculations to be parallelizable (and this is compiler checked), and if it doesn't run them in parallel, that can't hurt, right?
Rust can't stop random libraries from providing abstractions like this, but it does allow such libraries to be written to absolutely minimise overhead and maximise performance for when people opt in to using it. If this sort of parallelism isn't appropriate for the task at hand, the language isn't opinionated about what other schemes can work just as well as rayon.
Scala tries to enable you to create whatever api you want, so it has many different flavours of magic to allow flexibility of expression. Predictably this is used and abused horribly by a community who can't come to a consensus on what good taste is.
Rust on the other hand makes you explicitly say everything that happens. Nothing will happen without you being aware of it, and that makes it wordy and feel more complex, but it's the kind of complexity of having to say everything you mean down to a much greater level of detail rather than the kind of complexity that arises when it's almost impossible to know exactly what is going on.
Rust and Scala are pretty much at opposite ends of the 'magic' spectrum.