It has typeclasses! Well...it has *some* typeclasses. Some better than none, right?
Three. Hardcoded.
Uh
Conversation
Rust is a far more extensible, growable lang than Elm and Go, so you get much more mileage from the tools it gives you.
1
That said, the abstraction ceiling is still there though, and can be frustrating at times when you keep bouncing off it like a balloon… 🎈😭
1
Parametric & bounded polymorphism, ADTs, macros, escaping into unsafe for making primitives (Vec, Box, Rc, etc are libraries, not built-ins)
1
Equating Rust to Go and Elm is missing a bunch of those things that give you much more room to build domain-specific abstractions.
1
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.
1
Yeah, that's why I think Elm is on a better footing. But lacking bounded polymorphism of any kind is a pain. And while it offers native…
1
…libraries, you aren't able to build your own outside of the packages 'blessed' by Evan. Makes it extremely hard for third parties to extend
Replying to
I'm not a fan of Elm either. What started this whole thing off was my observation that Rust is too limited but is somehow untouchable.
1
Rust should not be free from criticism. But a few features result in it being far more extensible than “pretty much there too” suggests.
1
Show replies