4 ms·
Just going to be honest here: “Zero complexity print to the screen” Is, quite possibly, the dumbest argument people make in favour of one language over anothe
by wredue 3y ago
Just going to be honest here:
“Zero complexity print to the screen”
Is, quite possibly, the dumbest argument people make in favour of one language over another.
For experienced people, a cursory glance at the definitions should be enough. For new programmers, ignoring that part “for now” is perfectly fine. So to is “most programming languages, even low level ones, have a runtime that you need to provide an entry point to your program. In Java, that is public static void main. We will go over the individual aspect of this later. ”. This really is not that difficult, even for beginners.
Personally, I find more “cognitive load” in there not being an explicit entry point. I find learning things difficult when you’re just telling me extremely high level *isms.
- lamontcg 3y agoThis does surface the fact that its another await/async red/green function language though. If they're already making it gradually typed and not low-level, I don't understand why they don't throw away the C ABI-ness of it and make it more like Ruby with fibers/coroutines that don't need async/await. I'd like parametric polymorphism and dynamic dispatch and more reflection as well if we're going to be making a non-low-level rust that doesn't have to be as fast as humanly possible. (And honestly I'd probably like to keep it statically typed with those escape hatches given first-class citizen status instead of the bolted on hacks they often wind up being) [Ed: also rather than go back to object oriented, I'd rather see really easy composition, delegation and dependency injection without boilerplate code and with strongly typed interfaces]