5 ms·

The community needs a language that isn't so extreme that is opinionated on what is zero cost and what is not. Golang sort of fits this bill as it has an opinio

The community needs a language that isn't so extreme that is opinionated on what is zero cost and what is not. Golang sort of fits this bill as it has an opinionated take on this, but overall from my pov it's a bad opinion. No sum types, no namespaces, garbage collection.... I feel it's still the only other language that fills this space that isn't so OOP. It's a bad solution and it's popular because it's the only solution. Anyway to get back to your point, I think this is why so many people complain. It's either go or rust and neither is ideal so one way to deal with the problem is attempting to shape rust into this ideal. Right? Where can I find a language with no garbage collection, nice sum types and no over complicated async syntax? Where? Nowhere. This is what people want.

Rusky 3y ago
You can just not write async code in Rust, no? There are a lot of Rust programmers that work this way, and it's fine because async is quite separable from the rest of the language. Even if you have to pull in a dependency that uses async (though if you are not doing async stuff yourself, why would you??) you can trivially wrap it up with `block_on` and move on with your life.
- corethree 3y ago
  I could. But I could also write the whole thing in assembly or go. I want a language that does everything I want and that includes a clean async api. I think there's a hole here because what "I" described as what "I" want is what a lot of people want.
  - withoutboats3 3y ago
    You are commenting on a very long post in which I explained in detail how green threading wasn't compatible with Rust's lack of garbage collection. Your response is to just insist that you wish that wasn't the case - that you could have no garbage collection and user-space concurrency without any special syntax. Just repeating a demand in the face of an explanation as to why it isn't possible isn't going to get you far. I actually think what you want is green threading and garbage collection and the language I described at the end of my post, but you've sort of ideologically decided garbage collection is bad for whatever reason.
    - corethree 3y ago
      No I'm saying just do allocations and box under the hood for async await. Not for rust but for the ideal language people want but is missing. Rust obviously has a zero cost objective. I'm not directly talking about that.
ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
> Where can I find a language with no garbage collection, nice sum types and no over complicated async syntax? Austral: https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral It doesn't have complicated async syntax, because it doesn't have it at all :) https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral#fn:async https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral#fn:async
- corethree 3y ago
  I should add: that is also popular and easy to find a job for. I'm sure plenty of languages fit the bill, but will I find gainful employment with that language? Probably not.

Rusky 3y ago

You can just not write async code in Rust, no? There are a lot of Rust programmers that work this way, and it's fine because async is quite separable from the rest of the language. Even if you have to pull in a dependency that uses async (though if you are not doing async stuff yourself, why would you??) you can trivially wrap it up with `block_on` and move on with your life.

corethree 3y ago
I could. But I could also write the whole thing in assembly or go. I want a language that does everything I want and that includes a clean async api. I think there's a hole here because what "I" described as what "I" want is what a lot of people want.
- withoutboats3 3y ago
  You are commenting on a very long post in which I explained in detail how green threading wasn't compatible with Rust's lack of garbage collection. Your response is to just insist that you wish that wasn't the case - that you could have no garbage collection and user-space concurrency without any special syntax. Just repeating a demand in the face of an explanation as to why it isn't possible isn't going to get you far. I actually think what you want is green threading and garbage collection and the language I described at the end of my post, but you've sort of ideologically decided garbage collection is bad for whatever reason.
  - corethree 3y ago
    No I'm saying just do allocations and box under the hood for async await. Not for rust but for the ideal language people want but is missing. Rust obviously has a zero cost objective. I'm not directly talking about that.

ReleaseCandidat 3y ago

> Where can I find a language with no garbage collection, nice sum types and no over complicated async syntax? Austral: https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral It doesn't have complicated async syntax, because it doesn't have it at all :) https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral#fn:async https://borretti.me/article/introducing-austral#fn:async

corethree 3y ago
I should add: that is also popular and easy to find a job for. I'm sure plenty of languages fit the bill, but will I find gainful employment with that language? Probably not.