4 ms·

It's because: a) the language designers decided to cram several paradigms into it, including a heavier than usual dose of functional. b) most people don't wan

by blub 7y ago

It's because: a) the language designers decided to cram several paradigms into it, including a heavier than usual dose of functional. b) most people don't want to get pedantic about resource management c) the syntax is weird for people coming from the C language family

pcwalton 7y ago
I'm sure a lot of people don't care about explicitly managing resources! But there are a lot of people who do, and they need a language to use.
littlestymaar 7y ago
> a) the language designers decided to cram several paradigms into it, including a heavier than usual dose of functional. Rust is actually really close to JavaScript in that regard, with its mix of OOP-without-inheritance and the whole collection of functional method on Arrays and iterators (map, reduce, etc.). And while People have a ton of complain about JavaScript, none of them is «the JavaScript language is too complex». > b) most people don't want to get pedantic about resource management But Rust is explicitly aimed at people who do! You can't use Python or JavaScript to write a web browser, a kernel or anything where performance is paramount. > c) the syntax is weird for people coming from the C language family What ? Do you mean “ not coming from the C language family”? Because its syntax is clearly in the C-family (semicolon, braces).
- saghm 7y ago
  > What ? Do you mean “ not coming from the C language family”? Because its syntax is clearly in the C-family (semicolon, braces). My guess is that they're talking about the syntax inspired from its ML roots, like `let/let mut`, `->` for return types, and `:` for type annotations. I personally prefer these to the C-style equivalents, but I've talked with enough people who haven't used an ML-like language that I'm not quite as surprised as I used to be about people expressing misgivings about them.
  - littlestymaar 7y ago
    Thanks I haven't thought about that part, but nowadays it has become kind of mainstream: JavaScript uses let/const and typescript uses the colon notation for type. And I've never heard anyone complaining about those for the complexity of their syntax.

by blub 7y ago

pcwalton 7y ago

I'm sure a lot of people don't care about explicitly managing resources! But there are a lot of people who do, and they need a language to use.

littlestymaar 7y ago

> a) the language designers decided to cram several paradigms into it, including a heavier than usual dose of functional. Rust is actually really close to JavaScript in that regard, with its mix of OOP-without-inheritance and the whole collection of functional method on Arrays and iterators (map, reduce, etc.). And while People have a ton of complain about JavaScript, none of them is «the JavaScript language is too complex». > b) most people don't want to get pedantic about resource management But Rust is explicitly aimed at people who do! You can't use Python or JavaScript to write a web browser, a kernel or anything where performance is paramount. > c) the syntax is weird for people coming from the C language family What ? Do you mean “ not coming from the C language family”? Because its syntax is clearly in the C-family (semicolon, braces).

saghm 7y ago
> What ? Do you mean “ not coming from the C language family”? Because its syntax is clearly in the C-family (semicolon, braces). My guess is that they're talking about the syntax inspired from its ML roots, like `let/let mut`, `->` for return types, and `:` for type annotations. I personally prefer these to the C-style equivalents, but I've talked with enough people who haven't used an ML-like language that I'm not quite as surprised as I used to be about people expressing misgivings about them.
- littlestymaar 7y ago
  Thanks I haven't thought about that part, but nowadays it has become kind of mainstream: JavaScript uses let/const and typescript uses the colon notation for type. And I've never heard anyone complaining about those for the complexity of their syntax.