3 ms·

I still haven't used it enough to have a real opinion, but I think `dyn` is the one thing in all this I feel is a bad change. Otherwise the module system is goi

I still haven't used it enough to have a real opinion, but I think `dyn` is the one thing in all this I feel is a bad change. Otherwise the module system is going to be much nicer, `impl Trait` has been a thing needed since day 1, and some new forms of elision are nice. I'll be curious to see if I like the `match` changes though.

steveklabnik 8y ago
Incidentally, the match changes work in stable today. The audience for the edition isn’t just those who follow Rust closely, but for those who don’t. And even for those who do, we want to take a look at some of the things that make writing Rust feel differently in the last few months. Turns out the match stuff was good enough to stabilize a bit earlier, even though it was designed with all of these other features.
- nixpulvis 8y ago
  Yea fair point, just haven't been writing enough rust over the last few months :( There remains a small part of me that enjoyed the explicitness of fighting the compiler to understand what type I was actually dealing with (forced learning).
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    Have you read https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-... before? I find it extremely interesting. Sounds like you may be on the "rigorous" stage. This kind of feature helps the pre and post stages, at the expense of that one.
    - nixpulvis 8y ago
      I hadn't. It's a great peice though. The rust programmer who adds and removes `&` and `ref` blindly is in phase 1, the part I'm claiming to like is more or less phase 2, where some real thought goes into it, "here I have a &Option, so here it must be &Some(...)" and so on. Phase three is practical, much like how I might tell someone in casual conversation that something took orders of magnitude more time, without worrying too much about what magnitude I'm really talking about. This can give you the head space to tackle "real problems". As rust matures (and its users with it) I can understand the desire for these conveniences. I do feel the language loses some of its educational prowess. I'm always arguing in favor of more Racket like ideas, but the whole family of languages thing helps in this regard, but makes for quickly divergent communities. </ramble>

steveklabnik 8y ago

Incidentally, the match changes work in stable today. The audience for the edition isn’t just those who follow Rust closely, but for those who don’t. And even for those who do, we want to take a look at some of the things that make writing Rust feel differently in the last few months. Turns out the match stuff was good enough to stabilize a bit earlier, even though it was designed with all of these other features.

nixpulvis 8y ago
Yea fair point, just haven't been writing enough rust over the last few months :( There remains a small part of me that enjoyed the explicitness of fighting the compiler to understand what type I was actually dealing with (forced learning).
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  Have you read https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-... before? I find it extremely interesting. Sounds like you may be on the "rigorous" stage. This kind of feature helps the pre and post stages, at the expense of that one.
  - nixpulvis 8y ago
    I hadn't. It's a great peice though. The rust programmer who adds and removes `&` and `ref` blindly is in phase 1, the part I'm claiming to like is more or less phase 2, where some real thought goes into it, "here I have a &Option, so here it must be &Some(...)" and so on. Phase three is practical, much like how I might tell someone in casual conversation that something took orders of magnitude more time, without worrying too much about what magnitude I'm really talking about. This can give you the head space to tackle "real problems". As rust matures (and its users with it) I can understand the desire for these conveniences. I do feel the language loses some of its educational prowess. I'm always arguing in favor of more Racket like ideas, but the whole family of languages thing helps in this regard, but makes for quickly divergent communities. </ramble>