Again, I need specific things that are so difficult to use that the language
will fail without them. Just saying "don't finalize the language yet or it will
fail" is unhelpful stop energy.
Patrick
spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/30/2013 05:29 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
>> In general I understand the concern, but there are also a huge number
>of people
>> who just want the language to stabilize so that they can use it in
>production.
>> The window for relevance is finite and we've been designing the
>language for a
>> *long* time at this point.
>
>I understand and share this view, but see it as one side of the story:
>the other
>side beeing that the language has evolved pretty much in recent times,
>and this
>in part about several core features (pointer management, traits, basic
>data
>structures, error handling...). Obviously much remains unclear to the
>proto-user-base, and is felt as unstable and susceptible to drastic
>evolution
>still (maybe it's not for you, but maybe you are wrong on this ;-).
>
>I guess a significant number of people would prefere seeing the
>language go on
>evolving the time needed to have it reach a point where at least core
>constructs
>look like beeing close to as good as possible (considering the state of
>present
>knowledge about programming is or should be: read, probably much too
>few). I
>personly would cry when I see Rust ending up beeing yet another failed
>replacement for C (for the present, it would be so in part because it's
>much too
>difficult to use).
>
>Denis
>_______________________________________________
>Rust-dev mailing list
>Rust-dev@mozilla.org
>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
