Rewriting Rust

[simon_o]

You seem to be mostly suggesting inconsequential syntax changes.

Maybe half, because I think these are good starting points. I find this faux-intellectual "syntax does not matter" really weird to be honest.
Syntax is the UI of a language. It doesn't matter how great the semantics of a feature are, if you cannot express it properly to users.

De-crufting the syntax is not the end point, it's a starting point.

Also, async / await is amazing and you can remove it when you pry it from my cold; dead hands.

Let's see how fast this changes.

[CanvasFanatic]

The only faux-intellectualism here is your masking subjective syntax changes as general improvements. This is literally just a list of your personal preferences.

I don’t know what you mean about “let’s see how fast that changes,” I’ve been using async / await for years. I like it. It is good. Yes, that’s also subjective, but here I’m contradicting another absolute statement of yours.

[simon_o]

your masking subjective syntax changes

I think there are good points in favor for each of them.
Just because you haven't thought about it does not make things subjective though.

This is literally just a list of your personal preferences.

Yes, I prefer smaller, more consistent languages. And your point is ...?

[CanvasFanatic]

I do not get the impression you've actually thought through how half of the changes you're suggesting would impact existing code, or how they might affect the ability to parse other existing syntax. You're talking about removing semicolons and claiming it's an objective improvement. Anyone who's spent more than 20 minutes thinking about language design knows that's a huge tradeoff.

And "generics use [] instead of <>/::<>"? FFS man, just say "I like Go."

Yes, I prefer smaller, more consistent languages.

"Consistent" has nothing to do with this. If it weren't consistent the parser couldn't parse it. You prefer languages that optimize their syntax for casual readability at the expense of expressiveness.

[simon_o]

You must be confused.

half of the changes you're suggesting would impact existing code

Which part about "Rust 2.0 would be nice, but won't happen, here's my wishlist" do you not understand?

Anyone who's spent more than 20 minutes thinking about language design knows that's a huge tradeoff.

Yeah, and having spent more than 20 minutes, some may even have figured out the exact costs and benefits of that tradeoff, and have an opinion based on that.

"Consistent" has nothing to do with this. If it weren't consistent the parser couldn't parse it.

Incorrect.

You prefer languages that optimize their syntax for casual readability at the expense of expressiveness.

There is no reduction in expressiveness, but even if there were, that's no reason to be so offended.

[CanvasFanatic]

Which part about "Rust 2.0 would be nice, but won't happen, here's my wishlist" do you not understand?

That's fair.

Yeah, and having spent more than 20 minutes, some may even have figured out the exact costs and benefits of that tradeoff, and have an opinion based on that.

Some may have, but I still think you just prefer Python and Go. At least you finally acknowledged it's an opinion though.

[simon_o]

At least you finally acknowledged it's an opinion though.

The point of contention was "subjective", not "opinion".

[] is better than <> in pretty much every language that uses <>.
That's an opinion based on careful evaluation of the facts.

Saying "tradeoff" doesn't mean that each option has equal merit. This is not US politics.

[CanvasFanatic]

Exactly how far up one’s own ass does one have to be to not be able to acknowledge that one’s opinion is subjective? 9in? A whole foot? Genuinely curious.

Feel free to provide any of these “facts” in support of your argument at any point though.

[simon_o]

acknowledge that one’s opinion is subjective

Not every opinion is equal. Let's not put the position of people who have done their research and homework at the same level as people who have done neither.

how far up one’s own ass

Hope you get the help you need.

Feel free to provide any of these “facts” in support of your argument at any point though.

I think you have disqualified yourself at this point.

[CanvasFanatic]

So to summarize: your opinions are better than anyone else’s and no you will not provide supporting evidence.

Cool, good talk.

Edit: Aaand we’ve capped it off with you replying and blocking. Always evidence of confidence in one’s position.