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 "sometimes we use () and sometimes we use [] to do practically the same thing".
Then the various insanities with ::.
Then Generics. How many examples of languages which tried to use <> for Generics do we actually need before people learn the lesson?
I really wished some people took Rust, and wrote a new frontend to get rid of all the pointless inconsistencies and other "C did, so it has to be good"-isms (like_all_this_underscore_stuff or the ridiculous abbreviations), because many ideas of Rust are not only good but brilliant and deserve to be put into languages which don't belong to the purely-academic category.
I really wish Rust to succeed, but can we stop this approach of "3 steps forward and 2 steps backward" to language design?
Then "types start with an uppercase letter" except when the language creators break their own rule.
Then the fun "sometimes we use () and sometimes we use [] to do practically the same thing".
Then the various insanities with ::.
Then Generics. How many examples of languages which tried to use <> for Generics do we actually need before people learn the lesson?
I really wished some people took Rust, and wrote a new frontend to get rid of all the pointless inconsistencies and other "C did, so it has to be good"-isms (like_all_this_underscore_stuff or the ridiculous abbreviations), because many ideas of Rust are not only good but brilliant and deserve to be put into languages which don't belong to the purely-academic category.
I really wish Rust to succeed, but can we stop this approach of "3 steps forward and 2 steps backward" to language design?