this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
31 points (94.3% liked)

Rust

7313 readers
132 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
snowe@programming.dev
Ategon@programming.dev
EdTheLegendary@programming.dev
kahnclusions@programming.dev
torcherist@programming.dev
31
things rust shipped without (2015) (graydon2.dreamwidth.org)
submitted 1 week ago by azdle@news.idlestate.org to c/rust@programming.dev
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Interesting perspective. Not sure I agree with most of the suggestions though.

Some of the earlier ones remind me of C#'s records. Were they inspired from them?

Some of the later ones just feel like Go to me.

I like the idea of dropping syntax for ranges. It does feel like the syntax just leads to confusion.

Named parameters are problematic because of parameter names becoming significant to the API. See Python's * and / in parameter lists (like def foo(a, *, b) for example).

[–] soc@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago

Some of the earlier ones remind me of C#'s records. Were they inspired from them?

No, that stuff is much much older.

Named parameters are problematic because of parameter names becoming significant to the API. See Python’s * and / in parameter lists (like def foo(a, *, b) for example).

I think the name problem is overblown, you can always have an annotation to facilitate name changes.