Rust is like being molested by your Aunt. There's something off about her, but everyone regards her very highly, so you trust her, and then on a family camping trip out at Montauk Point she takes advantage of you. Years later, you accept and acknowledge what happened, but you still refuse to believe that she's scarred you, because that would put her in control, not you, and the last thing you want is a molester in control of your life -- but your denial doesn't make it the truth. You want to believe that deep down inside, Rust is a good person, and you see that Rust has very redeeming qualities, but you sit down to try and program Rust and all you can think of is Graydon Hoare's hard, throbbing clit.
If you design a new language, why would you repeat a bad design. If you went from C to C++, this is acceptable. But if you went from nothing to <Some new cool shiny language>, you could at least think up a more reasonable syntax.
For example, you could split the type declaration from the value declaration. Of course I understand the reasoning. Everybody knows C, yes? So everybody can use your language now.
Except that programmers, who can actually program, appreciate succinct syntax. Actually parse-able and human readable. Because that programmers understand that they have to maintain their code and need to share their code with others. It enables them to create code walkers, such as linters or transformation tools. These programmers will start programming on your language, make the toolchain better and drive the language into large corporations.
The second group is not really a programmer. They can only use one hammer in one way and don't want it to change. Rust is now actively targeting this group. They are targeting for mediocrity.
The third group is an engineer. The language is a precision tool, something they can dream. They need it for direct access to the machine. They don't like abstraction layers. They will never switch a language. So rust is missing these.
Rust will not be able to reach the first group. Not enough uniqueness. And rust will also not target the third group. Not enough control. Only the second will touch it. That's sad.
At a certain point a new Rust with yet newer features, but C-like, comes aboard and the old Rust has to go swim in the sea in a dirty washcloth basket.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-03 16:09
Other C like examples:
* Cyclone
* Vala
* Go
* D
* Aleph
They all are C like, but do not surpass C.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-03 19:31
I'm not convinced. Rust has the stench of C++, which disturbs me greatly. On the other hand, there is a niche for a sane application language that compiles to native code without a VM, doesn't impose a huge runtime cost on programs, and borrows sane approaches to concurrency and functional programming from useless research languages.
So Rust is, at least, a step in the right direction.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-03 21:20
>>9
I wish I had been molested, at least I wouldn't die a virgin ;_;
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-03 21:25
>>13
As a person overrun by their own feelings, I am offended by that.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-03 22:01
As a person looking forward to new languages (namely rust, clay, nimrod and julia). I'm sad how >>10 speaks the truth, people mostly want a mainstream braindead environment. Also, few people are heads, and it all goes like Guido wants.
But, it isn't all that bad after all. Nimrod could be a nice FIOC replacement, but julia is really the shit.
sane application language that compiles to native code without a VM, doesn't impose a huge runtime cost on programs, borrows sane approaches to concurrency and functional programming from useless research languages.
Umeana OCaml?
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 3:48
>>17
No. No one has or ever will mean to say OCaml. Get that through your fucking head already.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 4:11
To me only D and Nimrod are worth even trying.
Rust and Go are aggressively marketed by their own companies because they are late to the party.
But...but...ocaml is a sane application language that compiles to native code without a VM, doesn't impose a huge runtime cost on programs, and borrows sane approaches to concurrency and functional programming from useless research languages. I think >>10-san mena OCaml!
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 7:05
>>22
explain me, why does it use double semicolons
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 7:11
let's face it, Ocaml is better than haskell.. but you prefer haskell because you think it's cooler and feel like you're in that cool group by using it.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 7:16
>>24
let's face it, Windows is better than Linux.. but you prefer Linux because you think it's cooler and feel like you're in that cool group by using it.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 7:20
>>10
The only thing I'd change in Rust is that I'd replace curly braces with FIOC.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 9:02
>>26
Or...
you can use algol/lua-like syntax, e.g. julia
Or...
you can backplate getgoes
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 10:13
Well, if it's good enough for Mozilla and Samsung to build web browser with, then it's good enough for our FIZZBUZZ.
>>26
Replacing pig disgusting with nazindentation, talk about masochistic.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 14:19
Language that doesn't force GC? Yes please! And no, D doesn't count, since the standard library won't work without GC. And the GC in Rust actually seems to be sensible. And you allocate from stack 90% of the time anyway (9% are those ~ thingies and 1% are those gross @ thingies).
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-04 15:07
Hopefully this guy's language will pan out better than his DVCS popularity-wise.