> as it prevents the natural cancerous tendencies of PL wonks--just look at C++ or Scala Not sure if your examples are supporting your point. Number of language features implemented in the last version: C++ -- Hundreds.…
Maybe you start reading your links?
Not sure if further replies make sense. You seem to have either some issues understanding the text or acting dense on purpose, opting to argue against points which were never suggested. Considering that multiple Rust…
1) \ is usually taken for escapes, | is non-directional and therefore doesn't work with arbitrary nesting, and / causes the same problems as <. > Keep in mind Rust goal almost from the start was > something that is…
> It isn't possible to implement this by just overloading `()` without introducing dramatic new language features. Yes, that's understood, and I suggested one possible approach multiple times already. Even if there…
1) You basically have both () and [], wasting one of the scarcest resources in syntax (brackets). Some people might argue that getting a value from an array is totally different from getting the same value from a…
> Not to mention you are quite puzzlingly wrong on many accounts. I'd love to see an example where this is the case.
You are wrong. Just learn to deal with it. :-) > Not only are all your points about Rust incorrect That's cute, because other Rust proponents agreed on various things in this very thread. Are they part of this "campaign…
> you're still iterating over the list twice There is nothing about higher-order operations that would require developers to implement xs.map(...).map(...).map(...) or xs.Select(...).Select(...).Select(...) or whatever…
It is perfectly fine that many design choices in Rust evolved from "let's copy what $random_language did", but mentioning the drawbacks of that kind of approach to language design suddenly requires "scientific studies…
It says a lot about Rust's culture. If they are not only _not_ interested, but actively hostile towards input, why should I bother? Just look at the replies. Sure, it's possible to hand-wave issues away by setting the…
Yes, but getting 8 downvotes in two comments ... why should I care?
At least people use it, which is more than what could ever be said about Haskell, so it had a larger impact overall ... while getting things done at the same time. You only need to have one look at it's module…
Considering the glorious downvoting, I won't bother comment any further except saying that these "issues" Rust devs keep pointing out have been addressed. And now, I won't waste any further time with this cult.
Apart from the Rust's usual rule to invent some abbreviations, but only apply them half the time. Then "types start with an uppercase letter" except when the language creators break their own rule. Then the fun…
Most other things (like the ones you mentioned) require a level of expressiveness that Go lacks. SQL: Pointless without Generics. Cache layer: Pointless without Generics. ORM: Pointless even with Generics.
> What reason is that? Groovy made Java slightly less painful too use, but added its own warts. Today we have languages which are better than Java without adding all of Groovy's mistakes. > They're an Apache supported…
Groovy and Grails have lost their reason for existence years ago, and without the sponsoring they are both dead.
> Not everyone wants good enough; some people want an excellent, purpose built language for the web with all of the goodies we’ve come to expect on Day 1--no polyfills, no hacks, no waiting for a years long standards…
It's kind of telling that they feel that they first need to tell Go developers what an AST is ... PHP redux?
"Why should I ever wash my hands before a medical procedure? It just makes things more complex!" –– Surgeon, ~1700.
Compilation to JS is a few additional seconds during development, and the rest of your comment is right to the point.
Downvotes by completely delusional people are a compliment. Keep going.
So why would I use this given there are languages which - are much better than Dart, - run in the browser and - run on a crossplatform VM which is much better than DartVM?
Then pick Scala.js. Solid, mature, great libraries and one of the best languages out there, even when competing against real (in the sense of not compile-to-JavaScript-only) languages.
> as it prevents the natural cancerous tendencies of PL wonks--just look at C++ or Scala Not sure if your examples are supporting your point. Number of language features implemented in the last version: C++ -- Hundreds.…
Maybe you start reading your links?
Not sure if further replies make sense. You seem to have either some issues understanding the text or acting dense on purpose, opting to argue against points which were never suggested. Considering that multiple Rust…
1) \ is usually taken for escapes, | is non-directional and therefore doesn't work with arbitrary nesting, and / causes the same problems as <. > Keep in mind Rust goal almost from the start was > something that is…
> It isn't possible to implement this by just overloading `()` without introducing dramatic new language features. Yes, that's understood, and I suggested one possible approach multiple times already. Even if there…
1) You basically have both () and [], wasting one of the scarcest resources in syntax (brackets). Some people might argue that getting a value from an array is totally different from getting the same value from a…
> Not to mention you are quite puzzlingly wrong on many accounts. I'd love to see an example where this is the case.
You are wrong. Just learn to deal with it. :-) > Not only are all your points about Rust incorrect That's cute, because other Rust proponents agreed on various things in this very thread. Are they part of this "campaign…
> you're still iterating over the list twice There is nothing about higher-order operations that would require developers to implement xs.map(...).map(...).map(...) or xs.Select(...).Select(...).Select(...) or whatever…
It is perfectly fine that many design choices in Rust evolved from "let's copy what $random_language did", but mentioning the drawbacks of that kind of approach to language design suddenly requires "scientific studies…
It says a lot about Rust's culture. If they are not only _not_ interested, but actively hostile towards input, why should I bother? Just look at the replies. Sure, it's possible to hand-wave issues away by setting the…
Yes, but getting 8 downvotes in two comments ... why should I care?
At least people use it, which is more than what could ever be said about Haskell, so it had a larger impact overall ... while getting things done at the same time. You only need to have one look at it's module…
Considering the glorious downvoting, I won't bother comment any further except saying that these "issues" Rust devs keep pointing out have been addressed. And now, I won't waste any further time with this cult.
Apart from the Rust's usual rule to invent some abbreviations, but only apply them half the time. Then "types start with an uppercase letter" except when the language creators break their own rule. Then the fun…
Most other things (like the ones you mentioned) require a level of expressiveness that Go lacks. SQL: Pointless without Generics. Cache layer: Pointless without Generics. ORM: Pointless even with Generics.
> What reason is that? Groovy made Java slightly less painful too use, but added its own warts. Today we have languages which are better than Java without adding all of Groovy's mistakes. > They're an Apache supported…
Groovy and Grails have lost their reason for existence years ago, and without the sponsoring they are both dead.
> Not everyone wants good enough; some people want an excellent, purpose built language for the web with all of the goodies we’ve come to expect on Day 1--no polyfills, no hacks, no waiting for a years long standards…
It's kind of telling that they feel that they first need to tell Go developers what an AST is ... PHP redux?
"Why should I ever wash my hands before a medical procedure? It just makes things more complex!" –– Surgeon, ~1700.
Compilation to JS is a few additional seconds during development, and the rest of your comment is right to the point.
Downvotes by completely delusional people are a compliment. Keep going.
So why would I use this given there are languages which - are much better than Dart, - run in the browser and - run on a crossplatform VM which is much better than DartVM?
Then pick Scala.js. Solid, mature, great libraries and one of the best languages out there, even when competing against real (in the sense of not compile-to-JavaScript-only) languages.