4 ms·
"Make it simple" is easy to throw around, but it's almost meaningless. Perception of simplicity and readability is incredibly subjective and dependent on previo
by pornel 4y ago
"Make it simple" is easy to throw around, but it's almost meaningless. Perception of simplicity and readability is incredibly subjective and dependent on previous experience. Beyond that it also depends on what goals the language has, because "simple" from one point of view can be oversimplified and unclear from another POV.
Rust is a systems programming language concerned with several low-level details. Programmers aren't reading Rust code for entertainment, but need to be aware of things like ownership, mutability, lifetimes, trait bounds, dynamic dispatch, and so on. Beyond being eye-pleasing, Rust also needs to be locally explicit to communicate costs, limitations, and unsafety of the code.
As the article shows, beyond just bikeshedding which ASCII sequence you use for what, the aren't many ways to simplify the syntax that don't involve hiding information or changing language semantics that could worsen performance or create unpredictability.
- stephc_int13 4y agoSimplicity is partially in the eye of the beholder, I agree. And there is always a subjective part about any design decisions, but overall there are better designs and worse designs. And concerning programming language syntax, I tend to prefer a bit of verbosity over any terseness / compactness. I prefer Java/C# style over Perl/Sed. And I think that modern system programming languages tend to drift a bit too much towards the Perl style. Writing powerful but unreadable on-liners should be considered harmful.