Rust Language 0.10 Released With Big Improvements

[cmr~]

True, but Gc<T> is much more clunky than @T - there's no reason they couldn't have kept it and made it syntactic sugar for Gc<T>.
Rust is a really nice language, but the need to worry about borrowed vs. owned pointers makes it unusable as a high level language for me. Admittedly, it's not intended to be a high level language, but there's no reason it couldn't have catered to both domains.

We might add @T back in as sugar, hasn't been decided yet.

[goTouch]

The concept of owned and shared pointers is very common and also not easy in many languages. However this concept is so important for memory safety. I don't know an easy way to deal with them either. Owned pointer may be defined as a shared pointer that has refcount 1. But using different syntax for owned pointer certainly helps differentiate it and for compiler optimization.

True, but Gc<T> is much more clunky than @T - there's no reason they couldn't have kept it and made it syntactic sugar for Gc<T>.
Rust is a really nice language, but the need to worry about borrowed vs. owned pointers makes it unusable as a high level language for me. Admittedly, it's not intended to be a high level language, but there's no reason it couldn't have catered to both domains.

[profoundWHALE]

Rust started as a much, much different language than it is today. It was more of a low-level ML with typestate (http://pcwalton.github.io/blog/2012/...state-is-dead/) and a region system (http://cyclone.thelanguage.org/wiki/Papers/). Over time it has simplified and converged somewhat with one might expect of a traditional language. What Rust has that D doesn't is guaranteed memory safety without GC. We also have significantly less complexity language-wise than D. I'm not well versed enough in D to offer much more knowledge than that.

What I understand is D is meant to be 'C done better', and Rust is meant to be 'C++ done better'. By better I mean the next-generation of that type of language.

To be fair, anything unfamiliar will seem more complex than it is, whether we are talking about Rust or D.

Also, I like how you can be humble enough to admit you don't know everything about the other language. Keep up the good work you guys at Mozilla are doing!

[cmr~]

What I understand is D is meant to be 'C done better', and Rust is meant to be 'C++ done better'. By better I mean the next-generation of that type of language.

To be fair, anything unfamiliar will seem more complex than it is, whether we are talking about Rust or D.

D is undoubtedly a much more complex language. The experiences I've had with it are very positive though. You should browse its language reference sometime. I would say it has the same scope as C++. One way I heard it phrase was "D is a better C++ for people who like C++, Rust is a better C++ for people who dislike C++". Which isn't so false, at least on the Rust half: it came from frustrations Graydon (the original designer) had with C++.

Also, I like how you can be humble enough to admit you don't know everything about the other language. Keep up the good work you guys at Mozilla are doing!

I'm not actually Mozilla affiliated (few in the Rust community are), but thanks!