I am new to Rust, but quite excited about it. I have read most of the docs carefully.
I'm looking at some code that Niko Matsakis updated in https://github.com/stevej/rustled/commits/master/red_black_tree.rs pure fn each(&self, f: fn(&(&self/K, &self/V)) -> bool) { match *self { Leaf => (), Tree(_, ref left, ref key, ref maybe_value, ref right) => { let left: &self/@RBMap<K,V> = left; let key: &self/K = key; let maybe_value: &self/Option<V> = maybe_value; let right: &self/@RBMap<K,V> = right; left.each(f); match *maybe_value { Some(ref value) => { let value: &self/V = value; f(&(key, value)); } None => () }; right.each(f); } } } I understand this code reasonably well. I greatly value the attention to safety in Rust, and I appreciate the value of pointer lifetimes in maintaining that safety. My gut reaction, though, is that this code is almost as intimidating as Haskell. Even more worrisome to me, I think most mainstream programmers would find the *explanation* of this code intimidating. Who is our target audience for Rust? Graydon has said it is "frustrated C++ developers", but how sophisticated and how "brave" are we thinking they will be? (I'd like to think of myself as a team member who is just getting started, so while deferring to the senior folks, I'll say "we".) How intimidating do we think Rust is today? Am I just overreacting to unfamiliarity? How can we calibrate our "intimidation factor" before language decisions start getting harder to change? Do we want (and is it feasible) to define a simpler subset of the language that beginners are encouraged to stick to and that most libraries don't force clients away from? Dean ---- Dean Thompson https://github.com/deansher _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
