On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Samuel Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that it is syntactic salt and that the design is to discourage > mutability. I actually appreciate that point as a programmer. > > w.r.t. this specific issue: I think what concerns me is that it is quite a > high burden for new programmers (I teach COSC1xx courses to new students so > I have some idea about the level of new programmers). For example, you need > to know more detail about what is going on - new programmers would find that > difficult as it is one more concept to overflow their heads.
Either way, Rust is going to warn when there is unnecessary mutability. > Adding "var" as a keyword identically maps to new programmer's expectations > from JavaScript. Writing a program entirely using "var" wouldn't cause any > problems right? Rust has block scope, so `var` would match what `let` does in JavaScript. > But, could be optimised more (potentially) if using "let" for immutable parts. It really doesn't introduce any potential optimizations. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
