4 ms·
Honestly, it's kind of sad that things are chosen because they're industry standard, instead of how good/nice they are. After using Scala, I think that []'s are
by wtetzner 12y ago
Honestly, it's kind of sad that things are chosen because they're industry standard, instead of how good/nice they are. After using Scala, I think that []'s are much easier on the eyes than <>'s.
- kibwen 12y agoWhen designing a language, you have to decide which hills are worth dying on. Uglier it may be, but if using <> makes our syntax more immediately recognizable to C++ developers, then we have a better chance of succeeding in bringing safety to the low-level niche where C and C++ reign supreme. Don't worry, once Rust has established a foothold here, then we can start designing the pretty language that will usurp it. :)
- eklavya 12y agoI really really hope it changes to [] in future. I am scared of the code with lots of <>, I don't know why but I lose context.
- frowaway001 12y agoI agree with that. Having worked with languages which use <> and Scala, [] are just magnitudes more readable when expressing the same types.
- bjz_ 12y agoI hate the `<>`s, but the semantics are enticing enough for me to do all of my current personal projects in Rust. I would love Haskelly syntax, but life is never perfect... maybe somebody will make a pre-processor or something! Haha.
- wtetzner 12y agoI agree, it's not a deal-breaker. It's just that freezing something into a language forever because it's easier for someone just starting out feels wrong. Once you're familiar with the language, you have to deal with the ugliness forever.