The basic way pointers and traits work are not changing at this point, unless
some unsoundness is found. Remaining effort beyond what's on the roadmap is
going to focus on documentation.
If you believe the language will fail unless we radically change either one,
then all I can say is that I disagree, and I'm sorry Rust is not the language
for you.
Patrick
spir <[email protected]> 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
>[email protected]
>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
