On 11/11/2013 01:07 PM, Greg wrote:
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 answer is 'yes'. The designers of Rust are well aware of these
languages and many others and have debated syntax issues repeatedly (as
it is the most beloved pasttime of language designers). The current
syntax was designed very intentionally the way it is.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
