4 ms·

Because if you can't understand the syntax it's quite literally a skill issue. They didn't give any substantive critique beyond "reading is hard".

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I assert that certain syntaxes work with how certain people think, and don't work with how certain other people think. You can train to get around that to some degree, but it's not entirely a skill issue.
- reanimus 2y ago
  Again, without stating something more substantive about why the syntax is "incomprehensible" to them, my best assessment is always going to be "skill issue".
gmueckl 2y ago
Wow, this is just doubling down condescension again, while insinuating laziness baselessly. I resent that, especially when it is about a language that has parts that were intentionally designed to yield hard to read code.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Counterpoint: Rust is easy to read, and none of it was designed to be hard to read. If you make a website listing the languages you do understand, people who are concerned can consult it before they begin a project.
- reanimus 2y ago
  > insinuating laziness baselessly > intentionally designed to yield hard to read code I think if you assume that syntax you find odd/difficult was intended to confound you, I can safely make assumptions of my own.
az09mugen 2y ago
More than the syntax, it's the verbosity. The more you have to read the more you have to process. Did anyone in the creators of Rust have a look at the syntax of Crystal, Kotlin, Julia, or Elixir ? They're simple, you really don't have to put a lot of effort into reading. Rust looks like C took the verbosity of Java as a mandatory requirement and borrowed some cool concepts of Haskell (but not the simplicity of its syntax though).
- reanimus 2y ago
  Part of it is the explicitness mandated by the language (i.e. when dealing with Optionals or Results, you have to deal with both cases or explicitly state which you expect as an invariant). There's also curious (imo) choices on the part of rustfmt that seems to favor density of code that way.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  Interesting, I find rust is pretty dense, but mostly in a good way. It packs a lot of important information into the code, which is useful for reasoning about it. Languages with simpler syntax tend to hide that information (and sometimes because it's irrelevant due to the kind of tradeoffs they make, like all the languages you mention have some form of GC). Haskell I would say is especially hard for me to read, when there's so little syntax the code is just a sequence of functions and symbols without obvious delimiters it becomes a lot harder for me to understand the structure of it.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

I assert that certain syntaxes work with how certain people think, and don't work with how certain other people think. You can train to get around that to some degree, but it's not entirely a skill issue.

reanimus 2y ago
Again, without stating something more substantive about why the syntax is "incomprehensible" to them, my best assessment is always going to be "skill issue".

gmueckl 2y ago

Wow, this is just doubling down condescension again, while insinuating laziness baselessly. I resent that, especially when it is about a language that has parts that were intentionally designed to yield hard to read code.

pessimizer 2y ago
Counterpoint: Rust is easy to read, and none of it was designed to be hard to read. If you make a website listing the languages you do understand, people who are concerned can consult it before they begin a project.
reanimus 2y ago
> insinuating laziness baselessly > intentionally designed to yield hard to read code I think if you assume that syntax you find odd/difficult was intended to confound you, I can safely make assumptions of my own.

az09mugen 2y ago

More than the syntax, it's the verbosity. The more you have to read the more you have to process. Did anyone in the creators of Rust have a look at the syntax of Crystal, Kotlin, Julia, or Elixir ? They're simple, you really don't have to put a lot of effort into reading. Rust looks like C took the verbosity of Java as a mandatory requirement and borrowed some cool concepts of Haskell (but not the simplicity of its syntax though).

reanimus 2y ago
Part of it is the explicitness mandated by the language (i.e. when dealing with Optionals or Results, you have to deal with both cases or explicitly state which you expect as an invariant). There's also curious (imo) choices on the part of rustfmt that seems to favor density of code that way.
rcxdude 2y ago
Interesting, I find rust is pretty dense, but mostly in a good way. It packs a lot of important information into the code, which is useful for reasoning about it. Languages with simpler syntax tend to hide that information (and sometimes because it's irrelevant due to the kind of tradeoffs they make, like all the languages you mention have some form of GC). Haskell I would say is especially hard for me to read, when there's so little syntax the code is just a sequence of functions and symbols without obvious delimiters it becomes a lot harder for me to understand the structure of it.