controversial opinion: mut on variables was a mistake
Conversation
this decision was made for good reason, and i think that for Rust, we made the right call. I hope Rust++ or whatever doesn't follow this though
4
5
i can't recall a time where having to annotate a binding with mut actually saved me. it's just typing and one more compile/lint cycle i have to go through to get my code to compile
8
1
3
I'm fairly convinced i prefer _reading_ code with mut on variables. It gives me immediate hints whether I'm reading something that's done in an imperative vs. functional way
2
3
yes, basically this. YMMV of course
2
1
I've already previously advocated for having rustc emit "fixits" for errors it knows unambiguously how to fix, like clang does, which IDEs can apply automatically
1
2
this is the goal of rustfix, in part. cc
3
2
Would be neat to do that for imports. Also give you the option to select from possible imports when it's not ambiguous.
2
2
Other wishlist items for interactive Rust: interactive case splitting and holes (steal these from Agda and Idris!)
don't forget impl-block generation! I want `impl Display<TAB>` and get 95% of the code I need to write!
1
4
Yesss. *drools* Would be super nice to see more interactive type driven development in general for Rust, but baby steps. Great to see the overall progress!
2