4 ms·
It's not a dumb take. It's certainly true that Rust with GC would not solve the problems Rust was intended to solve, and would really not be Rust. But that doe
by twic 3y ago
It's not a dumb take. It's certainly true that Rust with GC would not solve the problems Rust was intended to solve, and would really not be Rust.
But that doesn't mean Rust with GC wouldn't be a nice language! I don't know of any language that really fits that description.
In fact, I'll pick just four things I like about Rust: a good type system, a supportive, productive community with a focus on doing real stuff, enough mindshare and buzz not to be irrelevant, and being not totally insane.
The first criterion rules out all untyped languages, Go, and the blue collar languages like Java and C#. The second rules out all existing functional languages. The third rules out whatever niche language you're about to suggest. The fourth rules out C++.
There really isn't a mainstream managed language which has managed to thread both the design and community needles the way Rust has.
- WorldMaker 3y agoC# probably has more of the "good type system" you are looking for than not these days (and every compiler release at this point seems to better it) as it keeps borrowing clothes from F# and the ML family of languages. The biggest missing tooth in the type system that most really want are discriminated unions at this point, and you can build things like them by hand or using common libraries (including building them relatively easily in F# in a way that is exportable to C#; it's not the most ergonomic answer, but it is fine sometimes). It's also something that seems increasingly likely to show up natively in a future compiler release.
- kaba0 3y agoScala seems to fit all of your requirements.
- twic 3y ago> a supportive, productive community with a focus on doing real stuff