Mozilla Continues Advancing, Promoting Rust Language

[Guest]

Rust will fail to spread

Rust is an overcomplicated programming language. Firefox will never use Rust as an implementation language.

[dee.]

I dunno, it seems interesting to me. Maybe I'll try it sometime, after it stabilizes.

[log0]

Our keywords: as, break, do, else, enum, extern, true, false, fn, for, if, impl, let, loop, match, mod, mut, once, priv, pub, ref, return, static, self, super, return, trait, type, unsafe, use, while, be, yield, typeof

34, compared to python's 31, C's 33, or C++'s 87. I don't really see what the problem is?

Let me correct myself, with keywords I meant symbols(or tokens or whatever you prefer to call them) reserved by the language. You have got four symbols (or operators?) to denote pointers. And what is the deal with '=>' symbol in the match expression, attributes, type kinds, traits...

But then if you are using C/C++ as your yardstick, so it will be ok I guess.

[tarceri]

Rust is an overcomplicated programming language. Firefox will never use Rust as an implementation language.

Well they are already testing it out for the creation of a browser engine so I wouldnt be to confident in saying never. https://github.com/mozilla/servo

[cmr~]

Let me correct myself, with keywords I meant symbols(or tokens or whatever you prefer to call them) reserved by the language. You have got four symbols (or operators?) to denote pointers. And what is the deal with '=>' symbol in the match expression, attributes, type kinds, traits...

But then if you are using C/C++ as your yardstick, so it will be ok I guess.

Well, it's intended to offset C++. We do have a lot of sigils for pointers. The => for match is to disambiguate the grammar and keep it simple to parse (We're LL(1)!). Type kinds and traits have no extra syntax associated with them.

The syntax is well thought out, but there's a careful balance between "unreadable" and "unique_ptr<Foo>(f)"

[DanLamb]

I agree, there are way too many languages out there that are general purpose. I have no major issues with languages designed for a specific purpose (such as database languages or robot languages and so on) but there are dozens of languages out there that could just simply "go away". Off the top of my head, ruby, D, and delphi are a few that don't need to exist. Obviously if we were to "vote a language off the island", there's always going to be somebody upset about it. But IMO it's all about what languages accomplish their goals the best.

There is a real need for this language: take the elegance and fancy language features in a Scala or Haskell and make it a suitable C replacement. C is still necessary for many uses, but there are many obvious flaws in the language that can't be fixed due to legacy.

Saying there are too many programming languages is like saying too many books have been written or there are too many blogs on the Internet. Use what you want.