3 ms·
> Rust was targeted to replace some C++ components, following C++ syntax was seen as a good idea. And that was a good decision. If it were too far from the C++
by xpressvideoz 5y ago
> Rust was targeted to replace some C++ components, following C++ syntax was seen as a good idea.
And that was a good decision. If it were too far from the C++ syntax, I would not have learned it, because as a mostly C++ guy at the time, some similarities with C++ helped me keep interest in Rust. Also, I was unable to parse Haskell's "type parameters as function applications" syntax, which was purely confusing. The Rust syntax is an abomination, that's true, but it is a necessary evil.
- nextaccountic 5y agoThe parenthesis aren't to be parsed like usual functions f(x), I think that's was the major source of confusion It's more like this, Thing<A> becomes Thing A Thing<A, B> becomes Thing A B Thing<A, B, C> becomes Thing A B C The parens only appears when you want to further nest types And.. okay, I reckon that the Haskell syntax for types would be unfamiliar. But, at least, it's not as cluttered