3 ms·
Interesting ideas but I'm in the camp that having everything be explicit causes complexity to be foisted on the user. There are times and places where that simp
by epage 4y ago
Interesting ideas but I'm in the camp that having everything be explicit causes complexity to be foisted on the user. There are times and places where that simplicity might offer some advantages but I'd rather my systems language scale between contexts.
- alcover 4y ago> having everything be explicit causes complexity to be foisted on the user I agree. I think once you understand and trust a language-provided abstraction or automation, you can use it happily. It's a machine you don't need to see the entrails of. > I'd rather my systems language scale between contexts. What do you mean ?
- epage 4y agoI appreciate when they work well as a general purpose language. I might need more control in a kernel. Userspace support code benefits from being in the same language and needs some systems programming features but doesn't need as much control. I also find writing tools in Rust to be a joy.
- ummonk 4y agoI feel like this is more of a tooling thing? E.g. I want IDE tooling that can infer type adjustments when I'm doing a refactoring.
- mamcx 4y ago> be explicit causes complexity to be foisted on the user Depending on the user, this is a plus. For a system language is important to be pedantic and explicit at each corner. HOW MUCH is the question! but the point of experiments like this is see how much you can go and still keep the pain low! P.D: "Complexity" can be good, but "Complicated" is what is to be avoided. I prefer to eat the complexity of Rust rules than the complications of debug a thread code...