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();

#Rust #rustlang

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?

#Nim #NimLang #Rust #RustLang

@berkes it's kind of self-explanatory. It would be a syntax that is similar to Ruby, as opposed to being C-like.

- Screenshots 1, 2 and 4: Elixir, (the power of Erlang but with Ruby-like syntax).
- Screenshot 3: Crystal (a low level language, but Ruby flavored).

I.e.:
- No ; and no {} blocks
- snake_case
- Favor expressiveness
- Favor clarity (so no &, *, <> everywhere)

@alfredbaudisch all those languages "lack" features though. No type constraints, no borrowing/memory fiddling.
Scoping and closures aren't controllable.

So a lot of the "clarity" seems to come from "not having these features".

Sure, rust-ish could have do-end instead of {}, remove ;, or have unless or even postfix "if". but does that really make a big difference? Is that what makes Ruby, Crystal or Elixir more readable?

Or is it the memory model, omission of types and features?