I won’t @ them but limiting expressivity in order to limit cognitive load and keep codebases approachable is a totally legitimate move in language design. I’d even say essential. It’s all about balance, and expressivity _does_ have tradeoffs.https://twitter.com/SeanTAllen/status/1036236006872305665 …
-
-
Heh, yeah, it's ok! I mean there are like 269 such things I very-slightly-wince at when considering where Rust wound up and then like 100,000,000+++ points of amazing everywhere else. No point picking nits with something that succeeded beyond wildest dreams.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It was a decision made with decades of precedent of <> working out poorly, and with dozens of languages as evidence which tried to work around the innate problems and failed. But so is language design ... two steps forward, three steps back. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Alternately, lots of languages using <> and users quite happily using them.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
there are plenty of decisions that Rust made that I think were mistakes; <> is not one of them.
-
blazing a path around syntax was never Rust's job, and the fact that Rust is such a boring language, syntactically, is only a boon, imo
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Since Index and IndexMut, the amount of useful information [] had for indexing has gone to zero ... do you think those types were a good or a bad idea in hindsight?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.