> At this state in Rust's development, we are unlikely to make any major > changes to Rust's syntax.
*cries* > I encourage you to check out Rust's syntax extension / macro system: > http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/tutorial-macros.html *clicks link* O_O *cries more* :'-( I'm not sure what stage I'm at right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Stages Either 3 (Bargaining), or 4 (Depression). - Greg -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. On Nov 11, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Tim Chevalier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Greg -- > > At this state in Rust's development, we are unlikely to make any major > changes to Rust's syntax. Literally years of effort have gone into > desgining the syntax, and at this point in the language's development, > our focus is on making any non-backwards-compatible changes in > preparation for releasing 1.0. > > I encourage you to check out Rust's syntax extension / macro system: > > http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/tutorial-macros.html > > and explore how that can be used to extend the base syntax. > > Cheers, > Tim > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> > > > > -- > Tim Chevalier * http://catamorphism.org/ * Often in error, never in doubt > "If you are silent about your pain, they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it." > -- Zora Neale Hurston
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
