3 ms·

I can't really see a world in which Rust is a "better Go". Rust is one of the more complex languages in existence, largely because it competes with C++ and thus

by Veedrac 11y ago

I can't really see a world in which Rust is a "better Go". Rust is one of the more complex languages in existence, largely because it competes with C++ and thus can't afford to lose many features nor do many things the easy way. Go is one of the simplest languages in existence. It's on the other side of the charts.

masklinn 11y ago
> Go is one of the simplest languages in existence. No, not even close.
vvanders 11y ago
Rust has many things that C++ doesn't have, and that's a good thing. I think you might want to spend a bit more time with Rust before considering it just another C++.
- Veedrac 11y ago
  I know Rust has things C++ doesn't have, and vice-versa. I don't see how that changes my argument that it's competing, though. Consider inheritance vs. traits. Rust isn't able to stick with just traits because there are some things, though few, that are slightly faster with inheritance. So Rust is going to get some form of inheritance (in whatever form it might take). For every bit of functionality in C++, there is or will be some alternative in Rust, and that's by design. The same is not at all true for Go.
wyager 11y ago
> Go is one of the simplest languages in existence. By what metric? I can think of a lot of simpler languages. Lua, C, Forth, all the theoretical dead-simple combinator languages you don't want to use (Lambda Calculus, SKI calculus, etc.), etc...
- Veedrac 11y ago
  > Lua, C, Forth Are all simple, yes. That C is on your list is kind'a the point - Go is explicitly a spiritual derivative of C. But go down on the TIOBE index[1] and tell me what fraction of languages there are as simple as Go. It's not a large fraction. [1]: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....
jbeja 11y ago
> Go is one of the simplest languages in existence Are you saying that is simple because: 1) Is so anemic and have a relatively small specification? 2) Let you solve problems in the most simple ways? I could (maybe) kinda agree if you refer to 1...kinda.

by Veedrac 11y ago

masklinn 11y ago

> Go is one of the simplest languages in existence. No, not even close.

vvanders 11y ago

Rust has many things that C++ doesn't have, and that's a good thing. I think you might want to spend a bit more time with Rust before considering it just another C++.

Veedrac 11y ago
I know Rust has things C++ doesn't have, and vice-versa. I don't see how that changes my argument that it's competing, though. Consider inheritance vs. traits. Rust isn't able to stick with just traits because there are some things, though few, that are slightly faster with inheritance. So Rust is going to get some form of inheritance (in whatever form it might take). For every bit of functionality in C++, there is or will be some alternative in Rust, and that's by design. The same is not at all true for Go.

wyager 11y ago

> Go is one of the simplest languages in existence. By what metric? I can think of a lot of simpler languages. Lua, C, Forth, all the theoretical dead-simple combinator languages you don't want to use (Lambda Calculus, SKI calculus, etc.), etc...

Veedrac 11y ago
> Lua, C, Forth Are all simple, yes. That C is on your list is kind'a the point - Go is explicitly a spiritual derivative of C. But go down on the TIOBE index[1] and tell me what fraction of languages there are as simple as Go. It's not a large fraction. [1]: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....

jbeja 11y ago

> Go is one of the simplest languages in existence Are you saying that is simple because: 1) Is so anemic and have a relatively small specification? 2) Let you solve problems in the most simple ways? I could (maybe) kinda agree if you refer to 1...kinda.