A new "systems" language? Really? What about an IL to replace Javascript as the lingua franca, rather than doing this?
Actually, Brendan discussed that very topic recently:
Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#12A new "systems" language? Really? What about an IL to replace Javascript as the lingua franca, rather than doing this?
Maybe because this guy is passionate about making a new systems language, instead of solving the problem you want solved?
I never understand people who complain that free project X exists, when those people could be working on Y which is obviously more important. As if production and enthusiasm were both zero-sum and fungible.
Also, as someone who works with systems languages every day, I can tell you that there's a need for this work. I'm not saying Rust is it, but the systems language space is pretty dead, which is scary in a world where processors are threatening to become parallel on scales we don't know how to deal with with traditional tools.
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#13This seems to be fairly similar to Go. Given I don't know too much about either, what are the major differences?
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#14I tend to judge languages solely on their aesthetic utility unless they're designed to make something very difficult possible (e.g. Erlang). And this one isn't any more pleasant to read than Java or C, it just happens to be a little different. Given the long list of advantages to using Rust, why they can't use an existing syntax? Also, I've always felt queasy about using -> or => as arrows. And the word 'let' instead…
> And the word 'let' instead of 'def' or 'var' gives me a strange flashback to middle school which I can't quite pin down.
I agree about the 'let' part. Why isn't "int i = 0;" sufficient?
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be too soon to ask, but what distinguishes Rust from Google's Go or the D programming language? It seems to me that we've got three programming languages competing for the same niche.
Not entirely sure what distinguishes them, but I'd rather have some competition in the niche than avoid defaulting to the first language that addresses the niche.
That's true, but this whole effort smells like an exercise in wheel re-invention to me.
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#16> Ed Borasky recently commented here at ReadWriteHack: "We flat out don't need any more programming languages! What we need is efficient implementations of the ones we have now and IDEs / version control systems that enforce software engineering discipline." There was no need for assembly -- writing straight machine code worked. There was no need for C -- writing straight assembly worked. Etc, etc. There has never be…
It might be too soon to ask, but what distinguishes Rust from Google's Go or the D programming language? It seems to me that we've got three programming languages competing for the same niche.
From https://github.com/graydon/rust/wiki/language-faq :
*Have you seen this Google language, Go? How does Rust compare?*
Yes.
Rust development was several years underway before Go
launched, no direct inspiration.
Though Pike’s previous languages in the Go family
(Newsqueak, Alef, Limbo) were influential.
Go adopted semantics (safety and memory model) that
are quite unsatisfactory.
- Shared mutable state.
- Global GC.
- Null pointers.
- No RAII or destructors.
- No type-parametric user code.
There are a number of other fine coroutine / actor
languages in development presently. It’s an area of
focus across the PL community.Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#17A new "systems" language? Really? What about an IL to replace Javascript as the lingua franca, rather than doing this?
Maybe because this guy is passionate about making a new systems language, instead of solving the problem you want solved? I never understand people who complain that free project X exists, when those people could be working on Y which is obviously more important. As if production and enthusiasm were both zero-sum and fungible. Also, as someone who works with systems languages every day, I can tell you that there's a…
Lets be clear, the author of the blog post asked an explicit question. If the question was, "Can I do whatever I want, and screw what you think?", I'd answer, "Of course you can".
But if you ask me "Do you agree?", well do you want my answer, or do you want me to simply say, "If that's where your passion is".
My honest answer, no I don't agree. I don't think we need a systems language of this sort. And I think there's a bigger gap that I'd like to see Mozilla work on, although maybe this blog post author isn't the right person to work on it.
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a whole lot, conceptually, it seems. The syntax feels very Nemerle-like to me, though, which is nice. Definitely something to play around with, if nothing else.
Having seen early versions of Rust (I work at Mozilla) I can tell you that the syntax is the last thing they're even considering (though that may have changed over the past few months). Seems like Graydon wants to get the guts right first.
That gets back to my question. What are Rust's advantages over Go or D?
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#19Looks like ReadWriteWeb is looking to DZone for inspiration. Amazing how my article about some 'old news' generated so many spinoffs. http://java.dzone.com/rust_language
Re: Mozilla Is Designing a New Programming Language Language Called Rust
#20A new "systems" language? Really? What about an IL to replace Javascript as the lingua franca, rather than doing this?
mozilla does not have the power to create a new lingua franca. JS is the language of the web they are in the mittle of the standartisation why would the complicate stuff even more?