> I don't think Rust can succeed as a language if it massively differs, > visually, from the language it intends to offset (C++).
Yes, I agree, and that's why I wrote:
"By this point, I'm aware that this is unlikely to happen."
I think it's still possible to simplify Rust's existing syntax while
maintaining the features it offers.
I am hoping that the developers of Rust will consider this issue important
enough to put more thought into it.
I am aware that I am jumping into an issue at a point in time that's considered
"late in the game".
From the outside, I can say (with confidence), that Rust is still a nearly
unheard-of language, and therefore it still has wiggle-room for improvement,
even if the Rust developers and community, because they have been immersed in
the language for quite some time, cannot see that this is in fact true.
I also believe Tim when he said that years of effort went into designing the
syntax.
However, during those many years, did any of the brains that were involved in
designing the syntax seriously consider Clojure's syntax, or Typed Clojure?
I'm almost certain that the answer is "no" (partly because these
languages/dialects did not exist at the time).
What about Lua, which is more C-like?
Or CoffeeScript?
Looking at the "Influenced By" section on Wikipedia seems to indicate that the
answer to these questions is, again, "no".
The list contains some bad role models (in terms of syntactic elegance and
simplicity): C++, Haskell, OCaml, and Ruby.
Thankfully Common Lisp is mentioned. Although, of the Lisps I'm familiar with,
Common Lisp has the ugliest syntax (still better than C++ though).
This is all to say that, from what I can tell, simplicity and elegance of
syntax was not a design requirement (or goal) that the Rust developers had in
mind.
And I think that's quite unfortunate for Rust.
I'm sorry I was not able to provide this feedback years ago when it might have
been more helpful. I only recently became aware of Rust.
- Greg
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with
the NSA.
On Nov 11, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Corey Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> At this state in Rust's development, we are unlikely to make any major
>>> changes to Rust's syntax.
>>
>> *cries*
>>
>
> I don't think Rust can succeed as a language if it massively differs,
> visually, from the language it intends to offset (C++).
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
