What about constant folding? Surely let mut x = 10 is easier for the compiler to optimise?
On 30 January 2014 16:18, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Samuel Williams > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree that it is syntactic salt and that the design is to discourage > > mutability. I actually appreciate that point as a programmer. > > > > w.r.t. this specific issue: I think what concerns me is that it is quite > a > > high burden for new programmers (I teach COSC1xx courses to new students > so > > I have some idea about the level of new programmers). For example, you > need > > to know more detail about what is going on - new programmers would find > that > > difficult as it is one more concept to overflow their heads. > > Either way, Rust is going to warn when there is unnecessary mutability. > > > Adding "var" as a keyword identically maps to new programmer's > expectations > > from JavaScript. Writing a program entirely using "var" wouldn't cause > any > > problems right? > > Rust has block scope, so `var` would match what `let` does in JavaScript. > > > But, could be optimised more (potentially) if using "let" for immutable > parts. > > It really doesn't introduce any potential optimizations. >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
