Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 15:41 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones Big news from Mozilla and Samsung today: the two have been working on a new browsing engine together, developed from the ground-up to be completely new, and it's written entirely in Rust, a new safe systems language developed by Mozilla. "Rust, which today reached v0.6, has been in development for several years and is rapidly approaching stability. It is intended to fill many of the same niches that C++ has over the past decades, with efficient high-level, multi-paradigm abstractions, and offers precise control over hardware resources. But beyond that, it is safe by default, preventing entire classes of memory management errors that lead to crashes and security vulnerabilities. Rust also features lightweight concurrency primitives that make it easy for programmers to leverage the power of the many CPU cores available on current and future computing platforms." The work is on-going, but of course, all code is out there right now.
Thread beginning with comment 557451
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: this language is fugly
by Coxy on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 17:48 UTC in reply to "this language is fugly"
Coxy
Member since:
2006-07-01

Yeah, like ruby is so much more readable and concise lol

Reply Parent Score: 5

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I'd agree. They're both kind of fugly. If I had to choose, I'd probably prefer the rust syntax. Plus its supposed to be lower level, which is nice. But, I'm not in too big of a hurry to adopt a language that's "rapidly approaching stability".

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: this language is fugly
by kristoph on Thu 4th Apr 2013 02:19 in reply to "RE: this language is fugly"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Your really missing the point. Ruby may not be your cup of tea but it's syntactically consistent. Just read that Rust example ...

- what is the value of 'let'; obviously the compiler can implicitly identify new variables (notice there is no type declaration)

- why pair for and each, don't both implicitly mean the same thing (they do in most languages)

- why do I need to put do in front of a spawn which takes a closure as it's param (there is no good reason, it's just how they decided it should be)

If you try to learn Rust you'll see it's full of these dumb arbitrary decisions. It's like French and masculine and feminine verbs. There are some rules and then there is stuff that just is. French has an excuse, it's developed over thousands of years, a modern computer language should be better thought out.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Your really missing the point. Ruby may not be your cup of tea but it's syntactically consistent. Just read that Rust example ...


In my opinion, the worse part is the mix between object orientation and functional approach (like in python):

for ["Alice", "Bob", "Carol"].each |&name|
let v = rand::Rng().shuffle([1, 2, 3]);

It should either be

for name in ["Alice", "Bob", "Carol"
let v = rand::Rng().shuffle([1, 2, 3]);

or

for ["Alice", "Bob", "Carol"].each |&name|
let v = [1, 2, 3].shuffle();

but missing both approaches is just confusing. This kind of design flaw was tolerable in the 80s, but if you are designing a new programming language in 2013, you should stick to one paradigm.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: this language is fugly
by Jaxxed on Thu 4th Apr 2013 06:45 in reply to "RE[2]: this language is fugly"
Jaxxed Member since:
2010-05-29

Not to get too of topic, nor to defend french, but in my experience (6-10 spoken languages investigated,) english is the only language I've encountered without the strong gender emphasis.
Also, most of the gender emphasis is actually object concepts (nouns and adjectives.)

I know that I am being a bit silly by pointing this out, but it is because there are some languages out there that can import foreign words properly, as they break the gender emphasis and then can't be used properly (declinated or conjugated.)

Reply Parent Score: 2