I am NOT making a Rust replacement, but — if you could fix one* thing about Rust syntax/semantics/etc.

[samir@mastodon.functional.computer]

@fasterthanlime Future should be a wrapper around Pin<Box<dyn FutureImpl>>. It would cost almost nothing and make a lot of async stuff way easier.

(Bonus points if Pin goes away entirely. The wrapper also wins because if we do get a better way to handle pinning, it could be removed in an edition upgrade.)

[chosunone@pleroma.chosunone.io]

@chebra @fasterthanlime this is actually really useful for doing things like temporary mutability, where after you are done changing something you "lock" it by redeclaring it but without the mutability modifier.

[lesto@hachyderm.io]

@fasterthanlime I want coloured function, user coloured and compiler enforced.
For example would be nice to mark functions as "blocking" (for whatever definition of blocking) and avoid them to be used by async unless enforced.
In embedded, in an interrupt, no other code can run or only other interrupt with higher priority if reentrant interrupt are supported and enabled.
this allow to call some simplified locking functions, but also you cant call locking that may hang...

[yosh@toot.yosh.is]

@arichtman @fasterthanlime

Hah, I'm not Amos and I don't have a kuma, but here's my take on Iterator semantics from my blog:

A survey of every iterator variant

(blog.yoshuawuyts.com)

And my take on Iterator trait naming:

Musings on iterator trait names

(blog.yoshuawuyts.com)

IMO the big painful one is that iterators in Rust only have a type `Item` for the item they yield. They don't have a type `Output` for the type they return, which is hard-coded to always be unit.

[samir@mastodon.functional.computer]

@lutzky @fasterthanlime I would very much like a garbage-collected language that shares the Rust standard library and has first-class interop with Rust libraries.

I have no idea if it’s possible though.

[fasterthanlime@hachyderm.io]

Unfortunately the ecosystem is split between colored functions and coloured functions

[pndc@social.treehouse.systems]

@fasterthanlime How has nobody else mentioned the orphan rule yet?

[fasterthanlime@hachyderm.io]

@arichtman @yosh told ya

[fasterthanlime@hachyderm.io]

@arichtman @pndc yeah exactly the fix is unsoundness so..

[waltertross@mastodon.online]

@fasterthanlime
let mut → var

[pndc@social.treehouse.systems]

@arichtman @fasterthanlime It's not quite the same thing because the languages approach traits and the problems solved by traits differently, but Scala handles this by (massive handwave over the details) giving the implementations a name, which has to be imported by the code which uses it. That way there doesn't need to be One True Implementation which limits where it can be defined. The flip side is that it needs to be imported by all library users and isn't automatically available, but since Scala code tends to wildcard-import from libraries, this is not particularly onerous.

[zwol@masto.hackers.town]

@fasterthanlime I have a dang *list*, but let's start with the pettiest one:

The value of { a(); b(); } should be whatever b returns, not ().

If you want to throw away the value returned by b you should have to write { a(); b(); (); }.

Leaving off the semicolon on the last expression in a block should be a *syntax error*, except when you wouldn't have to put a semicolon after that expression if it wasn't the last expression in the block.

[teohhanhui@mastodon.social]

@fasterthanlime Algebraic effects?

[simon@tutut.delire.party]

@yosh @poliorcetics @cyberia @fasterthanlime sometimes an anonymous struct with named fields would be nice, like for a one-off return type. but i usually eat the verbosity and make it a named struct, so it’s not where i’d spend language complexity budget first

[yanns@mstdn.social]

@fasterthanlime I'd like some syntax sugar like in Scala: o.map(_.toString())

[fasterthanlime@hachyderm.io]

@yanns they use `_` for that? huh! been a while since my EPFL days

[kroc@oldbytes.space]

@fasterthanlime As someone who learnt #Rust but didn’t stick with it, get rid of * / & syntax and use in / out / inout keywords on the parameter instead. It’s a noob thing but #C’s pointer syntax has always struck me as needlessly confusing and requiring too much micro-management through a code base. Rust was too much up-front architecting and not enough proving an idea works and cleaning up afterwards for me

#rust #c #programming

[pndc@social.treehouse.systems]

@arichtman @fasterthanlime In my own hypothetical Rust replacement which I don't expect to write any time soon, I would definitely be stealing quite hard from Scala. Other things: square brackets for trait parameters so we don't get weird parses from angle brackets and generally improving ergonomics, it basically having stable fn_traits so a collection or other container type can just be called directly to perform a lookup without the noise of .get or whatever, implicit parameters so some common parameter (e.g. a database handle) can bubble through the call stack without explicitly adding it to every function call, and perhaps its dependent functions/methods. But those are another three things…

[cyberia@tilde.zone]

@simon @yosh @poliorcetics @fasterthanlime yeah, often I find that if I'm returning multiple values from a function, either the thing returned is a useful grouping elsewhere in the program and therefore deserves a name, or the function is overburdened and can be split up

[fasterthanlime@hachyderm.io]

@cyberia @simon @yosh @poliorcetics something something stockholm syndrome (with all due respect)