On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it's still possible to simplify Rust's existing syntax while > maintaining the features it offers. >
You haven't actually explained which syntax you want to remove. > I'm almost certain that the answer is "no" (partly because these > languages/dialects did not exist at the time). > The language is very similar in semantics to OCaml, to say that Rust is only inspired by C++ would be a lie. What about Lua, which is more C-like? > You've obviously never used Lua, it's nothing like C. Or CoffeeScript? > Coffeescript is the exact opposite of what you ask - it's a superset of javascript that adds some syntax sugar. The fact it compiles to very readable javascript is a testament to this. > The list contains some bad role models (in terms of syntactic elegance and > simplicity): C++, Haskell, OCaml, and Ruby. > I seriously doubt your taste in syntax if you think Haskell and OCaml are undesirable. > Thankfully Common Lisp is mentioned. Although, of the Lisps I'm familiar > with, Common Lisp has the ugliest syntax (still better than C++ though). > You are clearly misusing the word "syntax"... Common lisp's syntax consists of only S-exprs and the quote sugar, as other lisps do. 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. > The goal of Rust was to produce a type-safe, memory-safe, programmer-safe programming language, in the niche of system's languages. And I think that's quite unfortunate for Rust. > It's quite unfortunate that the language doesn't abide by your nebulous, sparsely defined ideas of what a "good" language looks like? > 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. > I doubt it would have been taken seriously then. > - 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++). > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
