Most things about Rust are well thought out and well designed. It's the total weight that gets you. Like LISP, back when too many smart people from MIT were adding to it without an overarching vision. It's hard to keep it all in your head. The add-ons aren't libraries with specific functions; they're new control structures. This gives me the feeling I had dealing with the MIT Loop Macro.[1] Proliferation of control structures is not a good thing.
> Václav Havel's "The Memorandum"
It's crazy that you are aware of this, I always thought that his work had only a local appeal.
Saw it at Fort Mason in SF in the 1990s.
I've written a modicum of Go and the boiler plate was driving me crazy.
That's how I felt about Rust. See some code I wrote at [2], at "Return type and its error handling". Now that's boilerplate. The last time I mentioned this, it was brushed off with "Oh, you'll be able to do that with the '?' operator when it's implemented." Feel free to submit a pull request for the rewrite.
I get your lisp comparison but the fundamental difference is that in rust even the craziest stuff is bound to be safe. I wouldnt be comfortable doing this sort of stuff in other languages, but I'm OK doing it in rust.
Re error handling, Option's map method doesn't do the trick? Sorry on my phone and reading code is hard.
> Václav Havel's "The Memorandum"
It's crazy that you are aware of this, I always thought that his work had only a local appeal.
Saw it at Fort Mason in SF in the 1990s.
I've written a modicum of Go and the boiler plate was driving me crazy.
That's how I felt about Rust. See some code I wrote at [2], at "Return type and its error handling". Now that's boilerplate. The last time I mentioned this, it was brushed off with "Oh, you'll be able to do that with the '?' operator when it's implemented." Feel free to submit a pull request for the rewrite.
[1] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/...
[2] https://github.com/John-Nagle/rust-rssclient/blob/master/src...