I love the idea of making a memory safe and performant language, but maybe we could just stop with those two things — and not require programmers to learn a pile of entirely new concepts just because someone wanted a challenge.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
Nobody added those new concepts to Rust for fun. They were added because they were necessary to make a memory-safe, modern, and fast language.
1 reply 0 retweets 43 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
Really? We can’t have basic classes because of memory safety?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
I thought you were complaining about too many features, not too few.
1 reply 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @matthew_d_green
(In particular, not having classes is a weird argument for using C over Rust!)
1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
If I’m going to have to mess around with something confusing I can either use C++ or just write functions. I don’t want the overhead of learning a bunch of weird new syntax to do a little project.
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
What parts of the syntax do you consider weird?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
I ran into a bunch of documentation convincing me to learn about how to use traits as a way to make what seems to be a very limited class system. I’m sure it all makes sense, it’s just annoying.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
I mean…you can also use functions the same way you could in C. Classes aren’t in the language not because of functional purity, but because most systems programmers complained.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes
In particular you can use structs of function pointers. I do it sometimes. But yeah, about classes, there were systems people who were ready to fork the language to remove them if they got added. (Not that they were seriously considered.)
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton
And this is the problem. You can’t take something people are comfortable with and make it safe and performant, you have to cater to a lot of people’s other opinions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
I mean, we did. It’s just that that thing was more C than C++. (It’s funny, we get accused of being too C++-like probably more often. Kind of refreshing to hear criticism from the other direction, to be honest) :)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 8 more replies
New conversation -
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.