Thanks John, for the friendly email. :-) > 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.
I wonder, right for what reason? Do they actually *like* it? I wrote a lot of code in C++ back in the day. Can't touch the stuff anymore. *shudders* Or is it 'right' because it's familiar to C++ developers? I should have mentioned Java in my original post to the list. Java is relevant for a few reasons: 1. It has been around for a long time. 2. It's quite popular. 3. It's C-like, familiar, and attempts to implement some safety into the language 4. Its syntax is fairly simple (compared to C++). And most significantly of all: 5. It has gone through some significant syntactic changes, _years_ after being well established and well known. For example, Java 1.5 added Generics to the language (a simplified version of C++ templates). The recent Java has added anonymous functions (lambdas). Other well established languages have also made significant changes to their syntax well after their first birthday. Objective-C, for example, added properties and Automatic Reference Counting in with it turned 2.0. It also added syntax for various literals (arrays, maps, etc.): http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ObjectiveCLiterals.html So, given the history of these well established languages, I think there's still plenty of opportunity for change with Rust. More so, in fact, due to its alpha status. It's easier to remove syntax while a language is young, and Rust is still very young. > 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! I'd love to, but zero time at the moment. :-( Also, I'm not simply advocating a parenthesis-based syntax (though that would be *awesome*!). I think the present syntax is malleable and can be simplified and improved while retaining its C-ness for the sake of developers who haven't quite yet expanded their minds... :-p Cheers, Greg -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
