3 ms·

> It was an unforced error to imitate C++ Rust spent enough of its weirdness budget on new semantics. I may not be a fan of C++-style syntax, but if your goal

by kibwen 4y ago

> It was an unforced error to imitate C++ Rust spent enough of its weirdness budget on new semantics. I may not be a fan of C++-style syntax, but if your goal is to specifically tempt C++ developers with the promise of safer/saner language semantics, then making syntactic concessions towards familiarity with C++ is the right call. Rust isn't trying to be The One Language To Rule Them All, it's trying to target a very specific domain.

arthurcolle 4y ago
This is almost overly permissive... Yeah sure it looks the same but the semantics are so different that the statement seems... wrong
- vlovich123 4y ago
  As someone with a long history of c++ experience I found rust syntax fairly familiar even if some details are meaningfully different. For example, most code you read is very very similar. I found an easier time coming to Rust from c++ in terms of syntax familiarity than swift. I found swift much faster to write code once I actually got my head around it (I also had substantial experience with Objective-C/C++ prior to picking up swift). I think the strong counter is that you only really learn a language once, but Swift is a bridge from those coming from Objective-C not C++ and tries to hit other language goals so it’s hard to compare. Certainly this is the first real language giving c++ a run for its money in a way that nothing else has before, that’s not nothing, and it’s hard to argue whether the syntax chosen is part of that success or in spite of.
- ssokolow 4y ago
  Because Rust is, in effect, a GC-less Ocaml derivative with a coat of cherry-picked C++ syntax as paint. That's why the semantics are so different. It's more of the lineage that began with ML in 1973 than of the ALGOL 68 lineage like C is. The Rust compiler was even originally written in Ocaml before it became self-hosting. That's also where syntax elements like these come from: - let for variable declaration and postfix type annotations separated with colons - 'a (Ocaml's equivalent to <T> for generics, because, on an abstract/theoretical level, Rust's lifetimes are a special type of generic parameter, right down to "a" apparently being the habitual default type variable name, just like "T" is in C++) - Option (option in Ocaml), Some, and None - match - fn (fun or function in Ocaml) - -> and => (just -> in Ocaml) for function returns and match arms - ()
lmm 4y ago
> if your goal is to specifically tempt C++ developers with the promise of safer/saner language semantics, then making syntactic concessions towards familiarity with C++ is the right call. Rust isn't trying to be The One Language To Rule Them All, it's trying to target a very specific domain. I wonder how well that's worked out for them. My impression is that there's been a lot more people moving to Rust from Python/Ruby/Javascript than from C++.
- Yoric 4y ago
  Recall that the initial target was browser developers. I've seen what feels like considerable adoption from among Firefox developers. Chromium developers feel very tempted, too. Feels like success!
- sho 4y ago
  > My impression is that there's been a lot more people moving to Rust from Python/Ruby/Javascript than from C++ Is there any reason in particular you think a lot of high-level language people are moving to Rust? That is not my impression or experience at all and I struggle to think of any reason to do so besides a large, individual change in career focus. As a higher-level language user myself, I can't think of a single reason I would ever use Rust for anything. Sure, I think it's cool, and it's always good to learn new languages, but in practise it's just not suited to my domain - and I think that goes for the vast majority of us. I would say golang has scooped off more of the dynamic language types myself, although I also consider it a productivity downgrade and/or cargo cult to mostly be ignored without compelling reason. Which is even more the case with Rust!
  - j-pb 4y ago
    Fullstack & Wasm. There comes a point in your career where you're dissatisfied with the capabilities of the warm and friendly upper layers of your stack, and you descend into the cold dark waters where things are hard but fast. I used to write primarily in highlevel languages, but if you want to write realy interesting high performance stuff in javascript, WASM+Rust is a really neat tech to use. Similarly, with WebGL/WebGPU you need some familiarity with bare metal programming. I still write a lot of JS, but I regularly drop down to Rust.

by kibwen 4y ago

arthurcolle 4y ago

This is almost overly permissive... Yeah sure it looks the same but the semantics are so different that the statement seems... wrong

vlovich123 4y ago
As someone with a long history of c++ experience I found rust syntax fairly familiar even if some details are meaningfully different. For example, most code you read is very very similar. I found an easier time coming to Rust from c++ in terms of syntax familiarity than swift. I found swift much faster to write code once I actually got my head around it (I also had substantial experience with Objective-C/C++ prior to picking up swift). I think the strong counter is that you only really learn a language once, but Swift is a bridge from those coming from Objective-C not C++ and tries to hit other language goals so it’s hard to compare. Certainly this is the first real language giving c++ a run for its money in a way that nothing else has before, that’s not nothing, and it’s hard to argue whether the syntax chosen is part of that success or in spite of.
ssokolow 4y ago
Because Rust is, in effect, a GC-less Ocaml derivative with a coat of cherry-picked C++ syntax as paint. That's why the semantics are so different. It's more of the lineage that began with ML in 1973 than of the ALGOL 68 lineage like C is. The Rust compiler was even originally written in Ocaml before it became self-hosting. That's also where syntax elements like these come from: - let for variable declaration and postfix type annotations separated with colons - 'a (Ocaml's equivalent to <T> for generics, because, on an abstract/theoretical level, Rust's lifetimes are a special type of generic parameter, right down to "a" apparently being the habitual default type variable name, just like "T" is in C++) - Option (option in Ocaml), Some, and None - match - fn (fun or function in Ocaml) - -> and => (just -> in Ocaml) for function returns and match arms - ()

lmm 4y ago

> if your goal is to specifically tempt C++ developers with the promise of safer/saner language semantics, then making syntactic concessions towards familiarity with C++ is the right call. Rust isn't trying to be The One Language To Rule Them All, it's trying to target a very specific domain. I wonder how well that's worked out for them. My impression is that there's been a lot more people moving to Rust from Python/Ruby/Javascript than from C++.

Yoric 4y ago
Recall that the initial target was browser developers. I've seen what feels like considerable adoption from among Firefox developers. Chromium developers feel very tempted, too. Feels like success!
sho 4y ago
> My impression is that there's been a lot more people moving to Rust from Python/Ruby/Javascript than from C++ Is there any reason in particular you think a lot of high-level language people are moving to Rust? That is not my impression or experience at all and I struggle to think of any reason to do so besides a large, individual change in career focus. As a higher-level language user myself, I can't think of a single reason I would ever use Rust for anything. Sure, I think it's cool, and it's always good to learn new languages, but in practise it's just not suited to my domain - and I think that goes for the vast majority of us. I would say golang has scooped off more of the dynamic language types myself, although I also consider it a productivity downgrade and/or cargo cult to mostly be ignored without compelling reason. Which is even more the case with Rust!
- j-pb 4y ago
  Fullstack & Wasm. There comes a point in your career where you're dissatisfied with the capabilities of the warm and friendly upper layers of your stack, and you descend into the cold dark waters where things are hard but fast. I used to write primarily in highlevel languages, but if you want to write realy interesting high performance stuff in javascript, WASM+Rust is a really neat tech to use. Similarly, with WebGL/WebGPU you need some familiarity with bare metal programming. I still write a lot of JS, but I regularly drop down to Rust.