More concretely, a good ide with completion, the right snippets and contextual help is very helpful for learning new language.
I thing this could be a good idea to have an official set of "snippets", typical every day codes, that can be used to create a common contextual helps for editors (vim, sublim,...) When i arrive in a new language, i m used to gather the common "experience" and write some automatisation tool and documentation to have a unique point of entry for all "what should i do in this situation". This covers: - code styling - source organisation - file handling (open/close) - error handling - for python, import lines organisation - argument passing... Le 12 nov. 2013 11:35, "Diggory Hardy" <li...@dhardy.name> a écrit : > My opinion is that clear semantics and good documentation is much more > important than familiar syntax. Besides, it's not too closely C++ syntax; > for > example `let x : T = v` is much closer to Scala's `val x : T = v` than > C++'s > `T x = v`. (This is a good choice, as anyone who know's why C++ has a > `typename` keyword will realise.) > > But why is this discussion continuing here? The developers have already > stated > that major type changes are not an option for Rust 1.0. I have been > considering some (fairly major) syntax variations myself, but here is not > the > place; if you want to try out some other syntax then why not write a > compiler > extension which allows the option of different syntax through a different > file > extension (e.g. .rs2) or some such switch? > > I for one am not convinced that pure syntax changes can make that big a > difference; far more interesting would be an interactive IDE which lets the > programmer write plain English (or restricted English or German or > Japanese or > whatever you like) and attempts to infer what code is meant. Of course > English > is not precise enough to specify exact code (without a _lot_ of words), so > the > interesting part would be how to make the IDE smart enough and interact > with > the programmer well enough to produce good code easily. (The point of this > in > the first place is to allow the programmer to write things like "sort this > list" or "give me an n*n identity matrix" without expecting the programmer > to > know in advance how the relevant APIs work.) > > On Tuesday 12 November 2013 10:59:16 Gábor Lehel wrote: > > Does anyone have empirical data (or even anecdotes) about whether or not > > C++ hackers find Rust's syntax appealing? :-) > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:53 AM, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 11/11/2013 09:46 PM, Corey Richardson wrote: > > >> I don't think Rust can succeed as a language if it massively differs, > > >> visually, from the language it intends to offset (C++). > > > > > > I don't think Rust can succeed as a language if it massively resembles > > > > > > the language it intends to offset (C++). > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Rust-dev mailing list > > > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
