51–60 of 117 posts
~ for allocation was weird, but I will miss lack of ~ as analogy to * . Will they change * to `RawPointer ` too? ;) I'm not happy about change of [T] to Vec either. I hope all these changes will make a full circle and get a first-class syntax back.
I would argue that this change elevates the clarity and quality of Rust syntax.
That was one of my most used features. This stinks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Text Editor vs IDE.
Hmm... I don't understand why it has to be Text Editor vs IDE. The two concepts are orthogonal. One is for editing text; the other is for understanding and autocompleting text. If their concern is that there aren't any good tools for Rust yet, that'll be solved with time.
A trivial example which is not related to rust but I think serves as a decent example, you can assume the IDE will color/italicize/etc member variables to get rid of _var __var var__ nonsense. You can also use slightly less verbose terms even if they are less informative if you assume a tooltip with a concise and complete explanation pops up.
I'll be honest: Rust is kind of losing me with these changes. I started following/tracking the language about a year ago, and I thought the syntax looked really succinct and easily readable back then, but with changes like this, [T] => Vec , the region/lifetime syntax, together with the propensity to abbreviate almost everything, code is quickly starting to look kind of soupy to me. I get the arguments, and they're l…
It's ~[T] that is now Vec, which was a good change in emphasis (the former is still valid, though it will become Box with this RFC).
Besides the implementation differences, I think readability is improved when `Vec` is written.
Gee, with this few sigils remaining, Rust is going to have a very hard time finding widespread adoption, since it won't stand out from competing languages!
We still have "fn". :)
I'll be honest: Rust is kind of losing me with these changes. I started following/tracking the language about a year ago, and I thought the syntax looked really succinct and easily readable back then, but with changes like this, [T] => Vec , the region/lifetime syntax, together with the propensity to abbreviate almost everything, code is quickly starting to look kind of soupy to me. I get the arguments, and they're l…
[T] => Vec It's ~[T] that is now Vec , which was a good change in emphasis (the former is still valid, though it will become Box with this RFC). Besides the implementation differences, I think readability is improved when `Vec ` is written.
I'll be honest: Rust is kind of losing me with these changes. I started following/tracking the language about a year ago, and I thought the syntax looked really succinct and easily readable back then, but with changes like this, [T] => Vec , the region/lifetime syntax, together with the propensity to abbreviate almost everything, code is quickly starting to look kind of soupy to me. I get the arguments, and they're l…
I guess it's a language primarily by and for text editor users, and I'm beyond that point these days. What do you mean? EDIT: Imagine a programming language designed around an IDE. Fun thought. Not sure whether it's a useful thought, but it's fun to think about.
I'll be honest: Rust is kind of losing me with these changes. I started following/tracking the language about a year ago, and I thought the syntax looked really succinct and easily readable back then, but with changes like this, [T] => Vec , the region/lifetime syntax, together with the propensity to abbreviate almost everything, code is quickly starting to look kind of soupy to me. I get the arguments, and they're l…
I guess it's a language primarily by and for text editor users, and I'm beyond that point these days. What do you mean? EDIT: Imagine a programming language designed around an IDE. Fun thought. Not sure whether it's a useful thought, but it's fun to think about.