>> they obviously didn't put any effort into the syntax
> This is an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement to make, especially for someone who self-describes as "looking only occasionally into Rust".
There is nothing arrogant or especially ignorant about my statement.
I'm primary using a language that has a shitload more features than Rust but gets along with a fraction of syntax.
So from my standpoint this is clearly something to criticize Rust for.
And this is very sad imho as I think Rust is a great language as such. A great language with a miserable syntax!
That's especially unfortunate as there are today no technical reasons to make ugly languages given how fast our computers are.
> A whole lot of thought has been put into Rust's syntax.
Who knows, maybe you're even right, idk.
But at least the result does not show, and that's the only relevant part.
> My impression is that a certain amount of this was intentional; if their goal is to attract C++ developers, they can't scare them off with syntax that's wildly alien.
That's imho nonsense. You can't "scare" C++ developers with syntax. They already endure one of the most broken syntaxes out there.
One does not use C++ because of its syntax, but in spite of that monstrosity!
One endures it as the language has other until lately unmatched properties. But C++'s look & feel is just a horrible historical accident all in all.
Rust would be attractive for its features no mater the syntax.
As we see it gets hyped and does very well for a newcomer even it's overly and needlessly ugly.
> Fewer characters doesn't automatically mean better readability; in many cases it can mean the opposite.
Sure.
But it's Rust that uses almost every ASCII char for some special purposes; imitating by doing so one or two of the worst examples history ever created.
The other thing is: Putting outright line noise everywhere only because that makes reading the code simpler for the machine is just the completely wrong priority. Less line noise makes reading code definitely simpler for humans. It has reasons why math notation looks like it looks after hundreds of years of optimization…
The whole point of good syntax is that you can mostly ignore the syntax and concentrate on the message. But Rust is like C++, you can often hardly see the actual content as it's burrowed under a pile of ugly needless syntax noise.
Copying a bad example is definitely nothing to be proud of. Rust failed in that regard miserably, imho. For completely incomprehensible reasons—which make it especially bad.
It's a real pity such a great language looks like a archaic accident!
> This is an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement to make, especially for someone who self-describes as "looking only occasionally into Rust".
There is nothing arrogant or especially ignorant about my statement.
I'm primary using a language that has a shitload more features than Rust but gets along with a fraction of syntax.
So from my standpoint this is clearly something to criticize Rust for.
And this is very sad imho as I think Rust is a great language as such. A great language with a miserable syntax!
That's especially unfortunate as there are today no technical reasons to make ugly languages given how fast our computers are.
> A whole lot of thought has been put into Rust's syntax.
Who knows, maybe you're even right, idk.
But at least the result does not show, and that's the only relevant part.
> My impression is that a certain amount of this was intentional; if their goal is to attract C++ developers, they can't scare them off with syntax that's wildly alien.
That's imho nonsense. You can't "scare" C++ developers with syntax. They already endure one of the most broken syntaxes out there.
One does not use C++ because of its syntax, but in spite of that monstrosity!
One endures it as the language has other until lately unmatched properties. But C++'s look & feel is just a horrible historical accident all in all.
Rust would be attractive for its features no mater the syntax.
As we see it gets hyped and does very well for a newcomer even it's overly and needlessly ugly.
> Fewer characters doesn't automatically mean better readability; in many cases it can mean the opposite.
Sure.
But it's Rust that uses almost every ASCII char for some special purposes; imitating by doing so one or two of the worst examples history ever created.
The other thing is: Putting outright line noise everywhere only because that makes reading the code simpler for the machine is just the completely wrong priority. Less line noise makes reading code definitely simpler for humans. It has reasons why math notation looks like it looks after hundreds of years of optimization…
The whole point of good syntax is that you can mostly ignore the syntax and concentrate on the message. But Rust is like C++, you can often hardly see the actual content as it's burrowed under a pile of ugly needless syntax noise.
Copying a bad example is definitely nothing to be proud of. Rust failed in that regard miserably, imho. For completely incomprehensible reasons—which make it especially bad.
It's a real pity such a great language looks like a archaic accident!