Comment by oivey

Comment by oivey 2 months ago

15 replies

I mean, why not just write Rust at that point? Required static typing is fundamentally at odds with the design intent of the language.

trealira 2 months ago

A lot of people want a garbage collected Rust without all the complexity caused by borrow checking rules. I guess it's because Rust is genuinely a great language even if you ignore that part of it.

  • logicchains 2 months ago

    Isn't garbage collected Rust without a borrow checker just OCaml?

    • johnisgood 2 months ago

      Pretty much, I would say, in fact, I like OCaml better if we put the borrow checker aside.

      • pjmlp 2 months ago

        Thankfully, like many other languages that rather combine models instead of going full speed into affine types, OCaml is getting both.

        Besides the effects type system initially introduced to support multicore OCaml, Jane Street is sponsoring the work for explicit stack allocation, unboxed types, modal types.

        See their YouTube channel.

        • johnisgood 2 months ago

          Yeah, I have watched a couple of videos and read blog posts from Jane Street. They are helping OCaml a lot!

      • codr7 2 months ago

        Or even better imo, Reason ML.

  • Elucalidavah 2 months ago

    > a garbage collected Rust

    By the way, wouldn't it be possible to have a garbage-collecting container in Rust? Where all the various objects are owned by the container, and available for as long as they are reachable from a borrowed object.

  • spookie 2 months ago

    D and Go exist.

    There are alternatives out there

tgv 2 months ago

Not only that: Rust is considerably faster and more reliable. Since you're not writing the code yourself, Rust would be an objectively better choice.

Who are we trying to fool?