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?
TIL
Rust's `::<>` is called turbofish!
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/parser/bastion-of-the-turbofish.rs
https://turbo.fish/
@adolfoneto I don't know in terms of what is accepted in the Rust world in general since I'm still not that much involved with it.
But as compared to the rest of the syntax which can be really ugly, alien and esoteric, I personally found those 2 segments to be elegant.
Alfred R. Baudisch
Adolfo Neto