Hi, I am just a lurker as well, so take all of this with a good dose of salt...
> At the same time, I am disappointed and quite concerned about Rust's > unimaginative syntax. > It seems to preserve decades of poor decision-making from C++. > > Personally, I find it very pleasant. There are a few things I would have done differently (mostly to do using full names for e.g., function), but that is all window dressing. > > To the contrary, a simpler syntax will likely lead to increased > flexibility and possibilities. Lisp has demonstrated unequivocally. > > "Typed Clojure" may provide the authors with needed inspiration: > > Clojure is my main language, so don't take this as an attack on it (or lisps in general), but the "flexibility" that those languages show is at least in part due to the dynamic type system. Even typed clojure (and typed racket) are dynamically typed, but with posthoc type checking. Although there are many benefits to dynamic typing, neither efficiency, nor provable safety are usually counted amongst them.
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
