On 9/28/12 5:54 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 28 September 2012 at 17:42:07 UTC, Froglegs wrote:
The Rust website says this:
Generic types yes, only simple, non-turing-complete substitution
After seeing that I just assumed the language was worthless and
ignored it.. is there something more to this?
Relevant:
http://commandcenter.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/esmereldas-imagination.html
I remember the entry, it's caused some criticism on reddit or HN a while
ago. Particularly the closing paragraph has grated many people, but
heck, who hasn't had a bad blogging day?
We've experienced some similar criticism about D, which was quite
clearly (in my opinion) a rationalization of a foregone disposition
rather than a valid concern. One example that comes to mind is an email
exchange with a C++ expert who latched onto D not supporting structs
with internal pointers as an essential feature for many designs, which
that person found unthinkable to adjust.
(I don't see how the parallel with the actress anecdote holds, as the
punchline there is that an actor has to imagine being in other lines of
work as the very part of acting.)
Anyhow, I've recently decided to acquire some fluency in Go and look
into alternative ways to accomplish things I'd want to accomplish.
Andrei
