On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 07:36:26 UTC, Marcel wrote:
Rust designers seems to love really short keywords, this is in
my opinion a bit silly. On the other hand in D you have
keywords like "immutable" that are rather long to type. So I
prefer a mid way between those two.
They aren't silly, they're consistent. We have int, char, auto,
they have fn, var, and val which are common these days, why not
mut, pub, and priv? What is silly are the objections, such as
someone saying that it's like limiting the length of
identifiers.
It's obviously NOTHING like that.
Rust supports several types of pointers. The simplest is the
unsafe pointer, written *T, which is a completely unchecked
pointer type only used in unsafe code (and thus, in typical
Rust code, very rarely).
It's &T, and it has nothing to do with unsafety.
Those are silly as well. Why be consistent with the wrong choice?
I really don't want to see pubs scattered around my code as my
manager used to say - don't drink and code.
I really like Rust's semantics and the way it progresses but
there is really no valid nor sane argument for an APL inspired
syntax. Syntax is meant for human consumption and should be
designed accordingly. That's one of the main goals of a
programming language, otherwise we all would just program
straight in assembly. After all, assembly op codes and numeric
addresses are much shorter than the equivalent human readable
identifiers and function names.
