Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
matklad.github.io
Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
1–10 of 171 posts
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#2I think the article makes a good point, but the actual example isn’t Rust’s worst, not even close. It gets really hard to follow code when multiple generic types are combined with lifetime markers. Then it truly becomes a mess.
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#3Is it really better to remove the error case information from the type signature? Aren't we losing vital information here?
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#4I think the article makes a good point, but the actual example isn’t Rust’s worst, not even close. It gets really hard to follow code when multiple generic types are combined with lifetime markers. Then it truly becomes a mess.
Agree about the example! I can't tell if this article is tongue-in-cheek or earnest. I'm unclear on the point the author is trying to make.
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#5Is it really better to remove the error case information from the type signature? Aren't we losing vital information here?
The std::io error type is defined roughly as:
type Result = std::result::Result;
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#6Just give me Rattlesnake or CrabML and I'll stop complaining :-)
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#7The final version is still ugly. Why `pub fn'? Why is public not the default and why do you have to specify that it's a function? Why `: type' and `-> type', why can't type go before the identifier? Why do you need `File::' and `Bytes::'? What is that question mark? Why does the last statement not need a semicolon? It's like the opposite of everything people are used to.
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#8The final version is still ugly. Why `pub fn'? Why is public not the default and why do you have to specify that it's a function? Why `: type' and `-> type', why can't type go before the identifier? Why do you need `File::' and `Bytes::'? What is that question mark? Why does the last statement not need a semicolon? It's like the opposite of everything people are used to.
As someone who doesn't think it is pretty, but knows Rust I went through all your points and let me assure you except for the one where you wonder why the syntax can't be more like C/C++ where it comes down to taste, all of your questions have an answer that really makes sense if you understand the language.
E.g. making pub default is precisely the decision a language would make that values concise code over what the code actually does.
Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#9Kinda disingenuous, you don't reskin one language in another to make an argument about syntax -- you develop a clear syntax for a given semantics. That's what rust did not do -- it copied c++/java-ish, and that style did not support the weight.
When type signatures are so complex it makes vastly more sense to separate them out,
Consider,
read :: AsRef(Path) -> IO.Result(Vec(U8))
pub fn read(path):
inner :: &Path -> IO.Result(Vec(U8))
fn inner(path):
bytes := Vec.new()
return? file := File.open(path)
return? file.read_to_end(&! bytes)
return OK(bytes)
inner(path.as_ref())Re: Rust's Ugly Syntax (2023)
#10Why stop there and not go all the way to
pub fn read(path: Path) -> Bytes {
File::open(path).read_to_end()
}