> 3. *Using inheritance for collection mutability is bad.* Rust doesn't do it.
Is this an argument against generalizing over mutability at all (as I believe has been proposed in the past)? On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]>wrote: > On 12/4/13 5:07 PM, Ziad Hatahet wrote: > >> To be taken with a grain of salt, naturally: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS1lpKBMkgg >> > > I watched some of this. Some notes on specific criticisms follow. (Many of > the criticisms are too abstract to really confront head-on though--for > example, "correctness versus performance".) > > 1. *The compiler is too hard to modify.* See my other message in the > thread. > > 2. *Universal equality is bad.* Rust doesn't do it. > > 3. *Using inheritance for collection mutability is bad.* Rust doesn't do > it. > > 4. *The argument to functions such as "filter" should be pure to allow for > stream fusion.* Purity is hard in Rust. We tried it and the annotation > burden was too high. At least our iterators allow for more stream fusion > than creating intermediate data structures would. > > 5. *Forbid reference equality.* Incompatible with the systems language > nature of Rust. > > 6. *Silent coercion between primitives is bad.* Rust doesn't do it. > > 7. *Don't try to be too general purpose.* Rust is explicitly not designed > to be a language for all use cases. > > 8. *Unnecessary expressiveness is the enemy.* I think we've been holding > the line on language complexity quite well, even for features that are > popular like `&once fn`. > > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
