3 ms·

Then the only reasonable conclusion is that the Rust community has different tastes compared to the mainstream programming community. To put it euphemistically.

by blub 7y ago

Then the only reasonable conclusion is that the Rust community has different tastes compared to the mainstream programming community. To put it euphemistically. The Swift team probably also agonized over syntax decisions and they came up with something very different which has won over many people and attracted little criticism.

pcwalton 7y ago
The only concrete thing I've seen brought up so far is that some people don't like the keyword "fn". Swift chose "func". Is there really a huge difference? (I prefer "fn", by the way.) Swift also doesn't have pervasive use of lifetimes like Rust does. Lifetimes, by their nature, always add some level of "noise".
- blub 7y ago
  When people do make an effort and outline pain points, those are waved away by Rust programmers or deflected by claiming that they like said syntax choice. At the end of the day though, these tiny thing like fn, or the lifetime annotations and the many others add up to an unpleasant experience and less readable code.
  - rat9988 7y ago
    Lifetime annotations are an other ugly unreadable quirk. I'm happy to know I'm not the only one.
    - pcwalton 7y ago
      Those aren't syntax though. Without lifetimes you don't have memory safety without GC. There are plenty of languages that don't have memory safety, and plenty of languages with GC, but they don't broadly share Rust's goals.
      - rat9988 7y ago
        The problem is not lifetime but its annotation.
  - pcwalton 7y ago
    If Rust were an unpleasant experience, it wouldn't have users. I'm sorry that you disagree with the syntax decisions. We can't please everybody.
    - blub 7y ago
      I'm not an extremist, the language clearly has certain advantages. At the same time I do believe it could have a lot more users if it were a more pleasant experience. If it becomes a mainstream language (like Java, C++, etc), I'd be happy to concede I was wrong. It could be that memory safety will trump ergonomics and it wouldn't be the first time that somewhat painful to use tools become very popular - see Linux, git, etc.

by blub 7y ago

pcwalton 7y ago

The only concrete thing I've seen brought up so far is that some people don't like the keyword "fn". Swift chose "func". Is there really a huge difference? (I prefer "fn", by the way.) Swift also doesn't have pervasive use of lifetimes like Rust does. Lifetimes, by their nature, always add some level of "noise".

blub 7y ago
When people do make an effort and outline pain points, those are waved away by Rust programmers or deflected by claiming that they like said syntax choice. At the end of the day though, these tiny thing like fn, or the lifetime annotations and the many others add up to an unpleasant experience and less readable code.
- rat9988 7y ago
  Lifetime annotations are an other ugly unreadable quirk. I'm happy to know I'm not the only one.
  - pcwalton 7y ago
    Those aren't syntax though. Without lifetimes you don't have memory safety without GC. There are plenty of languages that don't have memory safety, and plenty of languages with GC, but they don't broadly share Rust's goals.
    - rat9988 7y ago
      The problem is not lifetime but its annotation.
- pcwalton 7y ago
  If Rust were an unpleasant experience, it wouldn't have users. I'm sorry that you disagree with the syntax decisions. We can't please everybody.
  - blub 7y ago
    I'm not an extremist, the language clearly has certain advantages. At the same time I do believe it could have a lot more users if it were a more pleasant experience. If it becomes a mainstream language (like Java, C++, etc), I'd be happy to concede I was wrong. It could be that memory safety will trump ergonomics and it wouldn't be the first time that somewhat painful to use tools become very popular - see Linux, git, etc.