4 ms·
I don't remember the exact quote, but I saw a talk where he said something like "People want big/verbose/explicit syntax for the languages features they don't u
by default-kramer 3y ago
I don't remember the exact quote, but I saw a talk where he said something like "People want big/verbose/explicit syntax for the languages features they don't understand, and small/terse/implicit syntax for the language features do understand." It made me realize that many of my language design opinions at that time were a matter of personal preference.
- physicles 3y agoAgree. This is also true of UX design in general.
- chubot 3y agoYou might be referring to this, which I think is even more accurate. Dave Herman quotes him: https://www.thefeedbackloop.xyz/stroustrups-rule-and-layering-over-time/ https://www.thefeedbackloop.xyz/stroustrups-rule-and-layerin... One of my favorite insights about syntax design appeared in a retrospective on C++ by Bjarne Stroustrup: For new features, people insist on LOUD explicit syntax. For established features, people want terse notation. I call this Stroustrup's Rule. Part of what I love about his observation is that it acknowledges that design takes place over time, and that the audience it addresses evolves. Software is for people and people grow. Side note: Dave Herman is Rust's most unrecognized contributor: https://brson.github.io/2021/05/02/rusts-most-unrecognized-contributor https://brson.github.io/2021/05/02/rusts-most-unrecognized-c... I often notice that the actual Rust authors and designers respect and are influenced by C++ very much. (Niko M is another C++ fan) It's only the randoms online that like to start C++ vs. Rust arguments. Another thing to note is that the Mozilla Rust is MUCH closer to C++ than Graydon's Rust was. Graydon's Rust was not at all about zero-cost abstraction, the shared motto of C++ and Rust.