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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @nokusu @brendanzab and
Most of these are simplifications though, honestly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Or capture clauses. This is actually a very similar situation to capture clauses, and it ended up not mattering at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @brendanzab and
That's because we have `move` for closures that capture. That's completely unrelated to reading code and not even knowing if a value was moved or not. I do know from my own experience that I rely on all those visual cues a lot. "none" vs "None" is entirely offtopic.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
“none.” vs. “None”, with the dot for disambiguation. I don’t think you were around for this controversy :)
-
-
-
Replying to @nokusu @brendanzab and
It shows that more verbosity doesn’t always help, and implicit is sometimes better than explicit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 7 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.