On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Masklinn <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-05-29, at 07:17 , Alex Crichton wrote: >> >>> In my opinion, rusti gets the job done. Yes, having in-memory compiled state >>> would work a lot better. But I don't know how viable that is. I know for a >>> fact that a big feature plan is to have the compiler only partially compile >>> when applicable, i.e. only compile things are actually important. That would >>> help drastically here. >> >> For me, if I use rusti I expect to get all of rust and everything that >> entails. > > Although I don't think rusti works well enough now (I don't think many > would disagree), I think this expectation is essentially crazy, Rust > not being a language where everything happens at runtime, it seems > only logical that there will be limitations on what an interpreter > can do >
When I was getting started with rust I was excited to see a repl: "rapid prototyping, yay!" But identical one-liners ran very differently (and brokenly) in rusti, and it was very misleading. I think rusti should stick around, but I don't think it should be marketed as a REPL, it should just act like the irc bot until it actually has identical semantics as real rust. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
