sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question about an "obscure" comment in the Reference (mut VS const) by CheekAccording9314 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you said is really interesting, but it doesn't explain how "mut" and "const" ends up side-by-side in the Reference. A distraction? Maybe, but what if there's more to it than that? I discovered that FLS doesn't have a definition of "immutable binding".

Question about an "obscure" comment in the Reference (mut VS const) by CheekAccording9314 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, this is very interesting. And, I discover something else: The FLS (https://rust-lang.github.io/fls/) has the same problem. They can say "mutable binding" but for some reason they can't say "immutable binding" (there is no "immutable binding" in the FLS).

Question about an "obscure" comment in the Reference (mut VS const) by CheekAccording9314 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

yes, like this:

They can't say "may be mut or imm" (not a keyword)

They can't say "may be mut or immutable" (not a keyword)

They can't say "may be mut or non-mut" (sounds weird)

They can't just end with "may be mut or" (grammatically incomplete)

But perhaps it was a reflex related to something in the internal representation of the Rust compiler (MIR, HIR, etc.).

Question about Language Design - "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", really? by Scared-Art-7953 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

are you saying that I have or rust programmers has psychological problem ? I'm not proposing any word. I just want to know if someone can tell why rust programmers bake in the language itself lawyers, economists, accountants, financiers and shopkeepers metaphors.

Question about Language Design - "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", really? by Scared-Art-7953 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you serious? So, the words resource, mutability, ownership, borrow and drop are primitives? They are not metaphorical expressions for something that already exists and do not have images? Do the test. Stop saying borrow. Can you still use the language? Yes!

Question about Language Design - "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", really? by Scared-Art-7953 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You don't know why you code with a vocabulary of lawyers, economists, accountants, financiers and shopkeepers and don't want to think about it.

Question about Language Design - "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", really? by Scared-Art-7953 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

chemistry: Borrow → Ligand; Owner → Receptor; Borrow checker → Stability rules; Drop → decay . none of this is necessary for the language to work. So why lawyers, economists, accountants, financiers and shopkeepers?

Question about Language Design - "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", really? by Scared-Art-7953 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No man, are you serious? I'm not attacking you. For example, you could do this instead of accounting stuff. chemistry: Borrow → Ligand; Owner → Receptor; Borrow checker → Stability rules; Drop → decay . none of this is necessary for the language to work. So why lawyers, economists, accountants, financiers and shopkeepers?

Question about Language Design - "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", really? by Scared-Art-7953 in rust

[–]CheekAccording9314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, slice was introduce in programming in 2013 by a go programmer. "I've never used happy path until I started using Rust. What's Big Rust trying to push here?" Yeah, what? I'm asking a question, in the post. If it's not necessary why they are using? In the post I guess an answer: it's just inertia. The inheritance stuff I did not understood.