4 ms·
The more interesting follow up question is: "How would you express the same semantics with a different syntax?" Too often discussions about Rust's ugly syntax l
by K0nserv 2y ago
The more interesting follow up question is: "How would you express the same semantics with a different syntax?" Too often discussions about Rust's ugly syntax lack this crucial component.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago> How would you express the same semantics with a different syntax? This isn't the problem, the problem is "... and keep the syntax C++-like?".
- K0nserv 2y agoIs it? I don't know if keeping Rust's syntax C++-like is a stated goal of the project, but okay sure we can add that caveat to my question. The big problem I see is that people will say "Lifetime annotations are ugly and noisy" and when pressed on the issue will eventually concede that they just want GC(which is not about syntax, but semantics)
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago> I don't know if keeping Rust's syntax C++-like is a stated goal of the project They won't change the syntax, the whole discussion is hypothetically anyway. What I wanted to express is that most people want a C++-style syntax (of generics), even if they complain about Rust's syntax.
- steveklabnik 2y agoIt was a goal, though lower priority than other goals. You can see this in the way Rust is largely “curly braces and semicolons” but at times when there’s good reasons it diverged from that, like the ML style let syntax.