On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Bennie Kloosteman <[email protected]>wrote:
> >It's a big issue. It's a fundamental impediment to programming at scale. > > -Its better than C and Rust allows pure C style as well as types.. there > are large C and Haskell apps.... > -if your target is systems programming than i think this is even less of > an issue. > - If your standard lib has most of the types than it becomes less of an > issue ( not that Rust does well here , there standard lib is like C ) , > since you wont often create the same type as the standard lib . > You really can't have this both ways. Either features like traits and implementations matter, in which case my programming in the large concerns come into play, or those features don't matter, in which case Rust isn't an enhancement of C. Pick one. I have been thinking about this more and more and over the years i think > ALL large scale multi purpose multi team apps bascially degrade without a > huge amount of work to keep it perfect... > Yes. But at least in languages with link safety it is possible to resolve problems without assembling a large team divided by multiple organizations, some of whose members are dead by the time the problem is identified. > Yet a "module" stays useable and maintanable for along time... > Ideally so. In the absence of link safety, there is no such concept. Rust does not preserve link safety. > So to me the problem of programmign at scale is less the language but the > app architecture and the way developers program . > App architecture is unquestionably important. No argument. Nonetheless, mistakes in the language design - in this case the absence of lexical scoping for impls (aka type class instances) - can destroy any hope of success for the best imaginable architecture. Jonathan
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
