Dear Mozilla, rust devs, and memory-safe enthusiasts everywhere, I'm very happy with the safety improvements that Rust brings.
This is true innovation. At the same time, I am disappointed and quite concerned about Rust's unimaginative syntax. It seems to preserve decades of poor decision-making from C++. The FAQ states: "The syntax is still evolving" I hope this is still true today. Syntax plays a significant role in safety: 1. Simple syntax makes software easier to write. 2. Simple syntax makes software easier to understand. 3. Simple syntax makes inserting a backdoor into an open source project more difficult. 4. Simple syntax leads to fewer mistakes. Were I to have written Rust, I would have modeled its syntax after Clojure/Lisp/Scheme instead of C++ [1]. By this point, I'm aware that this is unlikely to happen. However, I would like to ask the Rust architects to seriously consider this issue, and ask themselves what syntax they can remove from the language while maintaining type-safety. Removing syntax should not raise any fears that the language will lose any features or flexibility. To the contrary, a simpler syntax will likely lead to increased flexibility and possibilities. Lisp has demonstrated unequivocally. "Typed Clojure" may provide the authors with needed inspiration: https://github.com/clojure/core.typed/wiki https://s3.amazonaws.com/github/downloads/frenchy64/papers/ambrose-honours.pdf Kind regards, Greg [1] https://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2010/01/how-newlisp-took-my-breath-and-syntax-away/ -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
