3 ms·
I don't buy this, things like that are not a matter of "perspective". 1. A language that has an optional GC and a borrow-checker is better than a language that
by 13415 8y ago
I don't buy this, things like that are not a matter of "perspective".
1. A language that has an optional GC and a borrow-checker is better than a language that only has a GC or borrow-checker.
2. A language that has scalar subtypes with range checking and new types is better than a language that has only new types and no range checking.
So subtyping is complicated to implement in the typechecker. And? If GNAT can do it, why can't the Rust team not do it?
3. A language that has full support for OOP including inheritance and traits (or mixins) is better than a language that has less of these features.
I'm not claiming that every language should offer everything but a general purpose language that wants to be a viable substitute for C++ should at least have its OO capabilities.
- pcwalton 8y ago> 1. A language that has an optional GC and a borrow-checker is better than a language that only has a GC or borrow-checker. Disagree. It is worse to have two worlds that are poorly integrated with one another. Dividing the ecosystem in two would be a terrible idea. > If GNAT can do it, why can't the Rust team not do it? Because Ada isn't Rust? It's not that we can't do it. It's that typechecking complexity has a cost, and Rust is already operating at near maximum feasible typechecking complexity. > 3. A language that has full support for OOP including inheritance and traits (or mixins) is better than a language that has less of these features. No. Not every language needs to have every feature. Every feature has a cost. Not enough people are asking for inheritance to justify its cost at this time.