Can we have Two rust? The first one would be easy to learn, easy to read, and do most of ones would expect: on demand garbage collector, traits, Owned pointers,...
The second one would include all advanced feature we actually don t need everyday. Of course, we don t want to split the language, but rather présent the current things differently. The tutorials are a good starting point however, the rest of the documentations are quite complex. I would be very delighted to help on this matter. There could be some effort on simplification of the API (std/extra): provides just "the right functions" first, and allow all flexibility in a second step, maybe in an "advanced functions" parts in each API doc. For instance url.rs. To parse a string, you have to write this: let u = url::from_str(urlstring).unwrap(); I would propose this solution: let u = parse_url(urlstring); => simpler, easier to read, easier to remember ! Of course, the unwrap thing would still be here. base64.rs: let s = [52, 53, 54].to_base64(STANDARD); => why adding the "standard" argument? One will ALWAYS want the "STANDARD" method of creating the base64 representation of some bytes, why not adding this argument as default. There are some minor change to the API that would help a lot the learning of this language, along with adding more code sample in the documentation. After year of writing C++ code with complex API (boost) I enjoy writing with python which seems to provide just the right methods I need. I'll willing to help, but I don't easily find a easy starting point :) Gaetan Le lundi 11 novembre 2013, Brian Anderson a écrit : > 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 Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
