Conversation

This Tweet is unavailable. Learn more

It has typeclasses! Well...it has *some* typeclasses. Some better than none, right? Three. Hardcoded. Uh

Rust is pretty much there too but somehow _it_ gets a pass from criticism.

Rust is a far more extensible, growable lang than Elm and Go, so you get much more mileage from the tools it gives you.

That said, the abstraction ceiling is still there though, and can be frustrating at times when you keep bouncing off it like a balloon… 🎈😭

Outside of metaprogramming how is it growable or extensible?

Parametric & bounded polymorphism, ADTs, macros, escaping into unsafe for making primitives (Vec, Box, Rc, etc are libraries, not built-ins)

Equating Rust to Go and Elm is missing a bunch of those things that give you much more room to build domain-specific abstractions.

Replying to

Alas, it is still pretty hard to go more meta and convert design patterns into libraries. That's what Rust is missing compared to Haskell.

Replying to

Besides macros and bounded polymorphism (presumably via traits) Elm offers everything in that list. On a more constructive note ...

... if Rust allowed access to the typechecker at compile time like D it would much more compelling even w/out HKTs or TCO.