I'm experimenting with #Rust again, and my eyes always bleed with the "lifetime annotation syntax" - why does it have to use an apostrophe 😩 .
&'a mut i32
fn longest<'a>(x: &'a str, y: &'a str) -> &'a str {
impl<'a> System<'a> for LeftWalker {
type SystemData = (ReadStorage<'a, LeftMover>,
WriteStorage<'a, Position>);
But this time I'll try not to rage quit in digust again. I'll stick until this experiment ends. #rustlang
Another one:
- Generics in every language: Vector<MyType>()
- Rust:
Nope:
Vec<u32>::new();
This works:
Vec::<u32>::new();
And this ALSO works:
(Vec <u32)>::new();
So I can't use the universal language of: Vec<u32>::new();
But I can do (Vec <u32)>::new();
What kind of syntax is that? For the past 28yrs I used more than 12+ langs in every kind of project & the ugliest language I've seen is Rust.
Yes, EVEN UGLIER THAN ERLANG, at least Erlang is consistent and makes sense.
DREAM:
- Systems programming language w/ the safety of Rust
- a package manager
- the ecosystem/community size of Rust
- C/C++ tooling (debugger and LS)
- C/C++ interop
- ALL OF THAT with a Ruby-like syntax
The answer could be Crystal, but unfortunately it has a tiny tiny ecosystem and Windows is a 2nd class citizen and Crystal has probably the slowest compiler on Earth.
Nim is probably the answer (it's Pascal-like), but Nim loses on tooling.
Other suggestions?
@gustav I agree with both of your statements and think my Rust experiment will end in failure once again due to that, I just cannot convey the ugliness (especially because the language I use for my full time work since 2015 is Elixir, and Elixir is all about being simple and elegant, yet EXTREMELY powerful).
Of course on side projects and experiments I use all kinds of languages, but still most of my heart is on Elixir since 2015, so I'm biased towards that.
Alfred R. Baudisch
gustav