On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:07 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." >
... > 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? Greg, thanks for your comments! In fact, nearly all of the designers of Rust are deeply familiar with the syntactic conventions of these and other languages. Speaking only for myself, I come from Racket, and I'm a strong proponent of fully parenthesized syntaxes. But! Rust is not that language. As you suggest (and others confirm), that train left the station long, long ago. The choice of the Rust team to adopt a C++-like syntax was very deliberate, and I'm confident that the members of this team still believe that was the right choice. With that said, though, Rust is a new and exciting language; if you can think of improvements, try coding them up and see what you get! In my experience, the Rust developers are always happy to hear from volunteers who are excited about the language and have concrete pull requests. If you had the energy to build an alternate front-end using a parenthesized syntax, I'm sure there are others that would give it a try. Me, for instance! All the best, John Clements _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
