4 ms·
Isn't Rust's syntax technically more Algol-like than C/C++/Go/D are? Anyways, I don't think it's worth calling that a disadvantage, at least with the way it's s
by nv-vn 10y ago
Isn't Rust's syntax technically more Algol-like than C/C++/Go/D are? Anyways, I don't think it's worth calling that a disadvantage, at least with the way it's stated. I think "high learning curve" is a lot more accurate in this circumstance. And I'd disagree that the syntax serves no purpose, I think it's specifically designed to reinforce the notions of Rust's programming style (for example, implicit returns because Rust code is designed to always return something instead of using void functions). I'd be surprised if the syntax didn't help shorten code in at least a few places.