Rust Porting Begins For Intel's "e1000" Linux Network Driver

[Volta]

It is not syntax bullshit. The i++, ++i, etc are confusing and can lead to undefined behaviors and differences among compilers.

So limit them to pre-incrementation. Problem solved.

[Volta]

What would you prefer instead of let? var? val? :=?
You do realize these are all representations of the same thing and whichever you pick, can be argued against just as easily.

auto, just like C++. However, dremon_nl explanation makes sense.

[bug77]

auto, just like C++. However, dremon_nl explanation makes sense.

But auto is one character longer. See how easy it is?

[RahulSundaram]

auto, just like C++. However, dremon_nl explanation makes sense.

The only reason auto is used in C++ is because they inherited the keyword from C where it means something completely different but was largely unused in C++ so hijacking it to mean something else in C++ to avoid declaring a new keyword was kinda ok even though it was a clearly suboptimal choice. There is a good reason no other language has since then adopted it.

[Volta]

Lets call it out as it is, these complaints are really just distraction/venting mechanism for people that don't like Rust for largely irrational reasons.

These complaints are from people familiar with C. If Rust aims to attract Python, JavaScript, BASIC, Swift and Kotlin developers then ok. The 'let' word reminds me unholy broken POS nightmare called JavaScript and trauma won't probably allow me to learn this language.

[Volta]

There is a good reason no other language has since then adopted it.

And what is that reason?

[RahulSundaram]

Its hilarious seeing these people pick minor syntax grievances from a language even though such syntax has been quite common place for decades (as you pointed out).

Lets call it out as it is, these complaints are really just distraction/venting mechanism for people that don't like Rust for largely irrational reasons. I am also not a fan of Rust's syntax (they admitted they copied C++ syntax to make it easier for C++ people to migrate over even though arguably there are much nicer syntax's, i.e. Ruby/Scala) however in the grand scheme of things its a really minor gripe.

I think these criticisms are more readily explained by law of triviality principle. Superficial syntax criticisms are very common in programming (Python and spacing for example is a super common critique even hardly a major problem - Python has plenty of *other* substantial issues however). It requires much more in-depth knowledge of the language to point out say async design warts than complain about silly things like a keyword used even though it is very common. I wouldn't view this as anything particular to Rust.

[Volta]

But auto is one character longer. See how easy it is?

but it's easier for brain to process.

[RahulSundaram]

And what is that reason?

I already explained it. C++ committee only picked 'auto' because they were stuck with the keyword from C because of language compatibility requirements and decided to reuse it to have a different meaning since it is a rarely used keyword before that in either. No other language has direct C compatibility as a requirement (Even in C++, this isn't 100%). Every other language has other keywords like var or let instead since they don't have the legacy baggage where the same keyword can mean different things.

[iruoy]

These complaints are from people familiar with C. If Rust aims to attract Python, JavaScript, BASIC, Swift and Kotlin developers then ok. The 'let' word reminds me unholy broken POS nightmare called JavaScript and trauma won't probably allow me to learn this language.

If a keyword in a totally different language triggers your PTSD, seek help. It's not an argument against that languages usage in %NOT_YOUR_PROJECT%.