🦀 “How do you do $foo in Rust?” – “Use this create: …” That’s another symptom of the language being very young. Well, or maybe I’m just spoiled by Python and its very extensive standard library. 🤔 Still, I’m not too happy with pulling in tons of dependencies that all have versions like “0.4.0”.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @movq @prologic@twtxt.net IIRC, the story around rust async was a good example of letting things mature in libraries. They added macros for the keywords but then delegated the implementations to the ecosystem and then formalized stuff with proper language keywords and interfaces when stuff settled. I believe C++ has a similar model in that stuff tends to bake in boost before entering into the standard library.

@prologic@twtxt.net I totally agree. If I ever make a programming language, I really want to find a way to make removing features a regular part of the process. Rust definitely feels like it’s heading in the direction of complexity. However, I did see a ray of hope in a recent talk from rust conf. One of the co-leads for the language suggested removing features.

@prologic@twtxt.net As an aside, this is one thing I admire about Haskell. Its “core” language (sort of like an IR) can fit on a note card. I believe that someone fit it in a tweet. Haskell syntax and type system is more complex though. See this talk by FP God-king Simon Peyton Jones for more about that: https://youtu.be/uR_VzYxvbxg

@adi@twtxt.net @prologic@twtxt.net tiny bit facetious but not entirely inaccurate. 😂

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org While I think some parts of the FP (and Haskell especially) community can get into abstraction for the sake of abstraction. They do have some cool ideas. I think this is one of them.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org haha what do you think?