Agree. This isn't really a problem unless you also think that extra parentheses is a problem.

In many languages you could write:

> if (a + b) > (c + d)

or

> if a + b > c + d

And they're equivalent. Yet nobody complains that there are too many options.

This is some True Scotsman style counter argument, and it's hard for me to make a polite reply to it.

There are people who program with a "fake it till you make it" approach, cutting and pasting from Stack Overflow, and hoping the compiler errors are enough to fix their mess. Historically, these are the ones your pages/books cater to, and the ones who think the borrow checker is the hard part. It doesn't surprise me that you only see code from that kind of beginner and experts on some rust-dev forum and nothing in between.

The issue though is that this isn't a solvable "problem". This is how programming languages' syntax work. It's like saying that C's if syntax is bad because these are equivalent:

  if (x > y) {

  if ((x > y)) {

  if (((x) > (y))) {

Yes, one of your co-workers may write the third form. But it's just not possible for a programming language to stop this from existing, or at least, maybe you could do it, but it would add a ton of complexity for something that in practice isn't a problem.

Only `b` has the equivalent of "superfluous parens".

It's practically your job to defend Rust, so I don't expect you to budge even one inch. However, I hate the idea of letting you mislead the casual reader that this is somehow equivalent and "just how languages work".

The grammar could've used `Generic[Specific]` with square brackets and avoided the need for the turbo fish.

It hasn't been my job to work on Rust in for years now. And even then, it was not to "defend" Rust, but to write docs. I talk about it on my own time, and I have often advocated for change in Rust based on my conversations with users.

If you're being overly literal, yes, the <>s are needed here for this exact syntax. My point was not about this specific example, it's that these forms are equivalent, but some of them are syntactically simpler than others. The existence of redundant forms does not make the syntax illegitimate, or overly complex.

For this specific issue, if square brackets were used for generics, then something else would have to change for array indexing, and folks would be complaining that Rust doesn't do what every other language does here, which is its own problem.

> For this specific issue, if square brackets were used for generics, then something else would have to change for array indexing

The compiler knows when the `A` in `A[B]` is a type vs a variable.

A compiler could disambiguate, but the goal is to have parsing happen without knowing if A is a type or a variable. That is the inappropriate intertwining of parsing and semantics that languages are interested in getting away from, not continuing with.

Anyway, just to be clear: not liking the turbofish is fine, it's a subjective preference. But it's not an objective win, that's all I'm saying. And it's only one small corner of Rust's syntax, so I don't think that removing it would really alleviate the sorts of broad objections that the original parent was talking about.

> The grammar could've used `Generic[Specific]` with square brackets and avoided the need for the turbo fish.

But then people would grouse about it using left-bracket and right-bracket as brackets in a type "context".

The problem here is that angle brackets are semantics dependent syntax. Whether they are brackets or not depends on semantic context. Conversely square brackets are always brackets.

Square brackets would be semantically dependent if they appeared in the same position of angle brackets. There's nothing magical about [] that makes the problems with <> disappear.

It disappears the problem that angle brackets are sometimes not brackets. I.e. a<b>c is parsed as (a<b)>c or as (a(<b>))c.

It also comes up when you want compile time expressions as parameters to your generics:

    // nice and clean
    let a = Generic[T, A > B]::new(); 

    // gross curlies needed because of poor choices
    let a = Generic::<T, {A > B}>::new();

So that’s the Specificth element of Generic?

It's Brackets(Generic,Specific).

Lol, yes they would. However, I wouldn't. :-)

Well, the solution usually isn't in syntax, but it often is solved by way of code formatters, which can normalize the syntax to a preferred form among several equivalent options.

I certainly would support rustfmt turning those redundant forms into the simpler one.

I suspect rustfmt would consider this out of scope, but there should be a more... "adventurous" code formatter that does more opinionated changes. On the other hand, you could write a clippy lint today and rely on rustfix instead