Who cares? It's a totally uninteresting way to design a language, and such arguments rely entirely on flimsy notions of "learnability" anyways.
-
-
Keeping an eye on cognitive budget is how Rust was done, and I think it's entirely appropriate. A language is a brain-computer interface, and if the brain part doesn't interface well, the project fails. (Also note: we _tried_ 1st class modules and _our_ brains couldn't do it.)
1 reply 4 retweets 50 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pasiphae_goals and
((Today, of course, I would try again: more people have worked both on the tech itself and on making it accessible in the meantime. I'm hopeful modular implicits or something 1MLish works out, too.))
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pasiphae_goals and
(((By "accessible" here I mean accessibility to the implementors. If you're doing research tech transfer, as we were, it's often the case that the implementors -- dumb old systems hackers -- aren't as good at a thing as academia. Can't implement something we don't understand.)))
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pasiphae_goals and
Yeah, I'm actually super interested in this. Would really be curious about getting us a dependently typed systems language with even more of the stuff we've learned. Still getting to grips with dependent types though

https://github.com/brendanzab/pikelet …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brendanzab @pasiphae_goals and
I feel like we did ok shipping only about 5 years late, and on our 3rd runtime and 4th type system. The key was always to save people trapped in C++-world, not be a research testbed. Dependent types can wait for the next language :P
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @brendanzab and
(This is my persistent nag that nobody wants to hear: that I kinda wish people would stop adding new stuff in, or at least approach an asymptote; it's plenty complex as it is, and there's always the risk of losing the thread of the thing.)
6 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @brendanzab and
The various planned breaking changes to the language in the name of ergonomics are damn scary.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @brendanzab @graydon_pub and
Module changes, `mut` being implicit in some circumstances, argument-bound lifetimes, the `T throws E` proposal (not planned yet though, fortunately), etc…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Most of these are simplifications though, honestly.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton @brendanzab and
I strongly disagree to that, most of those changes are optimising code for writing and vague notions of "happiness" or whatever, and they will ultimately hinder code reviewing because you'll need to keep more stuff in mind to follow the code. Cf.https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42640#issuecomment-368161767 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nokusu @brendanzab and
I don’t share the concern. I remember lots of similar concerns around things that were totally uncontroversial now; e.g. “none.” vs. “None”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 12 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.