5 ms·

I think this has happened for a long time. First (70s), features from Algol-68, like structured programming or better flexibility for data types, were ported to

I think this has happened for a long time. First (70s), features from Algol-68, like structured programming or better flexibility for data types, were ported to other languages. Then (80s-present), the features from Smalltalk and Lisp started slowly to be ported to other languages, many times in an incomplete or unelegant way. We're still doing this, for example the last production spec of the Java language finally incorporated a mechanism to pass functions as input parameter on a method. And the next version of Java (9) will attempt to have some interactivity, with a kind of REPL. This, coupled with the powerful facilities of good Java IDEs, will give Java developers of 2017 the level of Interactivity and easiness of development that Smalltalk and Lisp users have enjoyed since the late 70s. Sad but true. Julia -an interesting language, by the way- borrows multiple dispatch from the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), among other features. CLOS itself was a further evolution of the OOP brought to the table by Smalltalk, invented by a true genius: Alan Kay. Rust is basically a "fixed C++", that is, a more usable, less annoying C++. So it's difficult to say there are truly new things in programming language. But it's not everything limited to Smalltalk and Lisp -- Prolog, ML (and OCaml, F# and Haskell) do bring new concepts to the table, and are worth checking out.

blub 9y ago
You managed to pick the two things where Rust is actually not improving on C++, because it's both more annoying and less usable compared to C++. There's a reason the expression "fighting the borrow checker" was coined. You're confusing your own biases and preferences for facts.
- Tade0 9y ago
  I find this whole "fighting the borrow checker" thing a tad inflated. I personally don't "fight" it anymore, because it's a simple rule to anyone who's familiar with pointer arithmetic. Also the compiler usually tells you what is it exactly that you screwed up this time and how to get out of this mess, which cannot be said about C++.
  - bad_user 9y ago
    In absence of a garbage collector, what people don't get is that it's really easy to screw up by creating race conditions or memory leaks. If fighting the borrow checker is annoying, that's because you don't get memory safety otherwise. The vast majority of vulnerabilities in the wild are created because of sloppy usage of C / C++, which is basically unavoidable in absence of expensive static analyzers that become as annoying as Rust, while not being as good.

blub 9y ago

You managed to pick the two things where Rust is actually not improving on C++, because it's both more annoying and less usable compared to C++. There's a reason the expression "fighting the borrow checker" was coined. You're confusing your own biases and preferences for facts.

Tade0 9y ago
I find this whole "fighting the borrow checker" thing a tad inflated. I personally don't "fight" it anymore, because it's a simple rule to anyone who's familiar with pointer arithmetic. Also the compiler usually tells you what is it exactly that you screwed up this time and how to get out of this mess, which cannot be said about C++.
- bad_user 9y ago
  In absence of a garbage collector, what people don't get is that it's really easy to screw up by creating race conditions or memory leaks. If fighting the borrow checker is annoying, that's because you don't get memory safety otherwise. The vast majority of vulnerabilities in the wild are created because of sloppy usage of C / C++, which is basically unavoidable in absence of expensive static analyzers that become as annoying as Rust, while not being as good.