4 ms·
Ok but I guess once again we end up at rust. Rust has its fair share of corners and weird syntax. It also has missing features so to speak. Go evolves at a m
by aatd86 2y ago
Ok but I guess once again we end up at rust.
Rust has its fair share of corners and weird syntax.
It also has missing features so to speak.
Go evolves at a more cautious pace, and is actually more successful. To the extent that rust also borrowed from Go.
The point is not even comparison but I'm still unconvinced about the whole, ignoring everything.
Minimalism, caution, and starting from first principles with a clean slate is obviously the right choice.
- IshKebab 2y ago> Ok but I guess once again we end up at rust. Yeah I guess because it is really good. > Rust has its fair share of corners and weird syntax. True, but IMO they're in smaller bits of the language, like trait bounds. Not something as basic as blocks, function calls or variable declaration. > Go evolves at a more cautious pace, and is actually more successful. To the extent that rust also borrowed from Go. Go is more successful because it is older. Give it a few years. I actually don't know of a single feature Rust has borrowed from Go. It is not even listed as an influence: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/influences.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/influences.html > Minimalism, caution, and starting from first principles with a clean slate is obviously the right choice. Throwing away learnings from other languages is pretty clearly a bad choice IMO. It would be like creating a new language where everything is nullable... oh.