I’m directing my criticism specifically on the technological advancement which is devoid of communal spirit, not on all technological advancement categorically.

Crediting human achievement to technological advancement is a mistake in my opinion. Technological advancement is not inherently good or bad. Communal spirit is what determines whether technology yields positive or negative outcomes. That’s the real ingredient behind everything humans have achieved throughout history.

Sadly techno-optimism has become a prevailing mindset in today’s world where people and institutions don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions because of belief that as-yet-unknown technological advancement will bail us out in the future, even when there’s no evidence that it will even be physically possible.

But what I said is that your view is a sad one, not an incorrect one. The truth is, technological advancement may truly end up being the defining characteristic of humanity. After all, when we think about extinct species, we tend to associate them most strongly with what made them extinct. Just as we associate the dinosaurs most strongly with a meteor, maybe an outside observer will some day associate humanity most strongly with the technology that sent us out in a blaze of glory.

What a sad view of humanity to think that our one defining characteristic should be pursuit of technology rather than the ability to intelligently collaborate and thereby form communities with a shared purpose.

I can assure you that the success of human survival throughout the history of our species has had far more to do with community and resourcefulness than with technological advancement. In fact it should be clear by now technological advancement devoid of communal spirit will be the very thing that brings an untimely end to our entire species. Our technology is destroying the climate we depend on and depleting the soil that we need for growing food, to say nothing of the nuclear bombs that could wipe us out with the wrong individuals in positions of power.

I don’t agree with the previous poster. There’s nothing wrong with diving in and figuring things out as you go, especially if that’s a way that you commonly like to learn. Everyone has different learning styles, and Rust can fit all those styles.

The main thing to understand is you shouldn’t let compilation errors discourage you. You will get a lot of compilation errors. And I mean A LOT. That’s okay, it’s normal, and it doesn’t mean you’re dumb or that Rust is an excessively difficult language. It generally just means that there’s some new piece of the language for you to learn before you can take your next step.

When you run into compilation errors, just read the error message carefully and see if you can understand what the problem is. Often the error itself will tell you how to fix it, but you should take the opportunity to understand why the fix is necessary. In every case there’s a reason that the language is putting limitations on what you’re doing. It’s to protect you from bad habits that other languages used to let you get away with. So understand what’s bad about what you were doing and you’ll rapidly grow as a developer.

If you can’t figure out what’s wrong from the compilation error alone, that’s when it makes sense to turn to the book. The error messages will generally include a reference code which you can use to get more details on the nature of the error. Googling that will lead you to online discussions and maybe entries in the Rust book. Otherwise there isn’t a real need to read through the book from front to back unless that’s a way you like to learn.