Am I wrong for wishing that rust had chosen a type syntax more like Haskell and less like C++? I know C++ programmers were a more important target demo than Haskell programmers, but all the stabby brackets make me a little sad. They're so pointy.
Conversation
Been using Rust since late 2012, and yes, I'm with you on this. Sadly they used to be square brackets (before my time), and were changed to pointy brackets somewhere along the line.
1
2
Some wish that Rust used Haskell's argument syntax (in types and expressions) but I kind of disagree. Type and expression parameters aren't curried, so it makes sense to use parameter lists for these.
1
4
Yeah, certainly a -> b -> c = a -> (b -> c) doesn't make sense for a language without ubiquitous currying, that's a good point.
1
There's also the dual use of spaces (juxtaposition, really) for abstraction and application (`f a` as a type vs `f a` as an expression), which doesn't make as much sense in Rust.
1
1
Definitely in general I think Rust's syntax is more something I've learned to cope with and accept, rather than something I really love. You also need to learn to write code that works with rustfmt - rather than writing big expressions and getting annoyed when it fmts badly.
1
3
I do wish rustfmt would take into account the author's line breaks more though.
1
is adding comments to force it to break lines good or bad
2
2
my //
.long()
.chain()
.that()
.i()
.want()
.like()
.this()
1
1