3 ms·
> often as readable as a scripting language I beg to differ. If anything, Rust is often cited as being hard to read.
by hu3 7y ago
> often as readable as a scripting language
I beg to differ. If anything, Rust is often cited as being hard to read.
- andrewflnr 7y agoSame here. Rust code tends to be dense. It has its moments, but I wouldn't compare it to a scripting language.
- steveklabnik 7y agoI'm sitting in a Rust talk at a conference right now, and the speaker has slides comparing the syntax to Ruby/TypeScript/Python. "You already basically know Rust" A lot of the fancier stuff is very different, but there's fairly close parallels to most of the basic syntax.
- hu3 7y agoCode that fits in a slide is hardly evidence for readability. Not to mention one could hand pick examples which is what I'd expect from slides of a talk.
- andrewflnr 7y agoBasically everything Algol-descended has close parallels in the syntax. That falls apart as soon as you hit a turbofish. I'm not saying the language or even the syntax is bad, but I think it does earn its reputation for being a little hard to read.
- steveklabnik 7y agoEven the turbo fish is consistent with other languages’ syntax: :: for scopes, <> for type parameters. Regardless, you almost never need to write the turbofish, so I think it also falls under niche syntax.
- i_dursun 7y agoIt’s like Rust is child of Python and Ruby but the real father is C++.