4 ms·
This is an interesting read, because I read it as "I would have done all these things which would have kept the language more pure to my vision but less accessi
by ZephyrBlu 3y ago
This is an interesting read, because I read it as "I would have done all these things which would have kept the language more pure to my vision but less accessible".
I also found this bit interesting: "It's easier to work with than C++, but that's fairly faint praise".
I see this kind of thing in my own personal projects all the time. I'm thinking "oh it would be really cool if I built X" when in reality most of the time users just want really simple stuff.
Being easier to work in than C++ might be faint praise, but it's probably the biggest draw of Rust for me. I don't want to touch C++ with a 10ft pole, but I love using Rust.
- masklinn 3y agoNote that the quote is specifically about parsing Rust syntax, it’s not about the language in general (which is a lot easier and safer to work in than C++).
- ZephyrBlu 3y agoTrue, but I feel like the sentiment generalizes very well. I'm sure that C++ is perceived to have a similarly low bar in many areas.
- truculent 3y agoI'm not sure it would be less accessible. I think the trade-offs would lean towards simplicity, and perhaps less familiarity. But with the right mental models, I think this could enhance accessibility (less "magic", or strange edge-cases). For example, see the discussion on not minding if users have to write something in a more verbose way if it preserves the language's principles. This type of trade-off is something that lowers the barrier to entry for beginners, who don't mind writing things out the long way.