3 ms·

It takes at most a week to get used to just about any syntax. It should absolutely never be a reason not to try a new language. That said, it would be lovely if

It takes at most a week to get used to just about any syntax. It should absolutely never be a reason not to try a new language. That said, it would be lovely if Rust had a more ML-like, rather than C-like, syntax (being originally inspired by O’Caml), but that would likely not help attract devs in the intended target audience! The insert function, for what it’s worth, has nonstandard formatting; the de facto standard rustfmt tool would use more newlines, making it clearer and less dense. The function also uses a couple of syntactic features like `if let`, which may seem unfamiliar at first but become second nature in a few days at most.

alt187 1y ago
It probably takes a week to get used to ugly pants too. OP's point is a matter of aesthetic judgement. I don't mind it either, but = |&I: can| -> Agree { Rust::Syntax }; is.a(Bit(&mut chaotic);
- Sharlin 1y ago
  I should probably have used something less ambivalent than "getting used to". There's certainly more elegance in Rust's semantics than syntax, but the latter doesn't really differ much from C, except for much better for loops, a sane declaration syntax (this is a BIG deal), and of course all the features that C just doesn't have, like closures^* Some of the syntax noise just has to be there in some way, to support the real deal which is the semantics. ^* I don't particularly enjoy the Ruby-borrowed || either, particularly because Alt-7 is a terrible key combination to type, but oh well.
  - bombela 1y ago
    Out of curiosity, what language specific keyboard requires alt-7 to enter the pipe symbol? On the QWERTY keyboard, the pipe is near the enter key and easily typed.
dman 1y ago
Laughs in lisp
- Sharlin 1y ago
  I've written Clojure professionally. It's exactly the language I had in mind when I said that it takes a week to get accustomed to. I find it a very clean and elegant language. Shame that it's dynamically typed.
  - tmtvl 1y ago
    Check out Common Lisp, it's gradually typed, so if you want you can just write your code like this: (defun fib (n) (declare (type (Integer 0 100) n)) (the (Integer 0 *) (if (< n 2) n (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2).)
mikkupikku 1y ago
Every time a language developer chooses to give their new language a novel, let alone chaotic, syntax, they sin against the very premise of software development being an engineering profession. Can you imagine the madness if mechanical engineers had the same laissez-faire mentality towards the conventions and learned best practices of their field? Randomly chosen bolts to use left hand threads just because it suits their arbitrary whim, every thread has a unique pitch never seen before just to make the machine stand out from the crowd. Parts of the machine use hot rivets, not because the design demands it but because it scratches a retro aesthetic itch the designer had that day. Every time a new machine is designed it has a whole class of new never before seen quirky ways of being put together and any mechanic who pleads for standardization on common sense ways of putting a thing together are just told to git gud because the creative expression of the 'engineers' is paramount. (This is how we end up with German cars, isn't it?)
- dzaima 1y ago
  It's of course a matter of perspective, goals, and assumed knowledge. Is it choosing to not follow best practices, or leaving outdated practices with unfixable downsides behind? Is it inventing new things or instead actually just taking already-existing things that you just happened to not know about? Is it making arbitrary changes, or necessary ones for a useful goal? Is an extra bit of temporary pain for existing engineers worth making things better for all future engineers? (not to say that Rust has necessarily made all the right decisions; but alas basically nothing is perfect, and things certainly won't get better if noone tries)
- wtetzner 1y ago
  > Every time a language developer chooses to give their new language a novel, let alone chaotic, syntax, they sin against the very premise of software development being an engineering profession. Exactly which syntax should every language be using then? Everyone will give you a different answer. > Randomly chosen bolts to use left hand threads just because it suits their arbitrary whim Claiming the syntax was chosen randomly on a whim is very much not true: https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html And there are times when it does make sense to use left-hand threads. Just because someone looks at new syntax and doesn't immediately understand it doesn't mean that syntax doesn't exist for good reason. Also, if your language's constructs and semantics don't exactly match those in other languages, then giving them the same syntax would be actively misleading, and therefore a design flaw. Syntax is also only an issue for people who haven't taken the time to learn the language. If you haven't learned the language, then familiar syntax isn't going to help you anyway. You'll just think you understand something you don't.

alt187 1y ago

It probably takes a week to get used to ugly pants too. OP's point is a matter of aesthetic judgement. I don't mind it either, but = |&I: can| -> Agree { Rust::Syntax }; is.a(Bit(&mut chaotic);

Sharlin 1y ago
I should probably have used something less ambivalent than "getting used to". There's certainly more elegance in Rust's semantics than syntax, but the latter doesn't really differ much from C, except for much better for loops, a sane declaration syntax (this is a BIG deal), and of course all the features that C just doesn't have, like closures^* Some of the syntax noise just has to be there in some way, to support the real deal which is the semantics. ^* I don't particularly enjoy the Ruby-borrowed || either, particularly because Alt-7 is a terrible key combination to type, but oh well.
- bombela 1y ago
  Out of curiosity, what language specific keyboard requires alt-7 to enter the pipe symbol? On the QWERTY keyboard, the pipe is near the enter key and easily typed.

dman 1y ago

Laughs in lisp

Sharlin 1y ago
I've written Clojure professionally. It's exactly the language I had in mind when I said that it takes a week to get accustomed to. I find it a very clean and elegant language. Shame that it's dynamically typed.
- tmtvl 1y ago
  Check out Common Lisp, it's gradually typed, so if you want you can just write your code like this: (defun fib (n) (declare (type (Integer 0 100) n)) (the (Integer 0 *) (if (< n 2) n (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2).)

mikkupikku 1y ago

Every time a language developer chooses to give their new language a novel, let alone chaotic, syntax, they sin against the very premise of software development being an engineering profession. Can you imagine the madness if mechanical engineers had the same laissez-faire mentality towards the conventions and learned best practices of their field? Randomly chosen bolts to use left hand threads just because it suits their arbitrary whim, every thread has a unique pitch never seen before just to make the machine stand out from the crowd. Parts of the machine use hot rivets, not because the design demands it but because it scratches a retro aesthetic itch the designer had that day. Every time a new machine is designed it has a whole class of new never before seen quirky ways of being put together and any mechanic who pleads for standardization on common sense ways of putting a thing together are just told to git gud because the creative expression of the 'engineers' is paramount. (This is how we end up with German cars, isn't it?)

dzaima 1y ago
It's of course a matter of perspective, goals, and assumed knowledge. Is it choosing to not follow best practices, or leaving outdated practices with unfixable downsides behind? Is it inventing new things or instead actually just taking already-existing things that you just happened to not know about? Is it making arbitrary changes, or necessary ones for a useful goal? Is an extra bit of temporary pain for existing engineers worth making things better for all future engineers? (not to say that Rust has necessarily made all the right decisions; but alas basically nothing is perfect, and things certainly won't get better if noone tries)
wtetzner 1y ago
> Every time a language developer chooses to give their new language a novel, let alone chaotic, syntax, they sin against the very premise of software development being an engineering profession. Exactly which syntax should every language be using then? Everyone will give you a different answer. > Randomly chosen bolts to use left hand threads just because it suits their arbitrary whim Claiming the syntax was chosen randomly on a whim is very much not true: https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html And there are times when it does make sense to use left-hand threads. Just because someone looks at new syntax and doesn't immediately understand it doesn't mean that syntax doesn't exist for good reason. Also, if your language's constructs and semantics don't exactly match those in other languages, then giving them the same syntax would be actively misleading, and therefore a design flaw. Syntax is also only an issue for people who haven't taken the time to learn the language. If you haven't learned the language, then familiar syntax isn't going to help you anyway. You'll just think you understand something you don't.