No, a class-based OO language where you need to spend effort crafting build targets by hand or use an IDE to define how to build is not anything close to what I'm talking about. If you think that it's "Rust with GC", I think you're misunderstanding what actually appeals to most people about Rust.
I'd also argue that "runs on all OS" is true, but "is easy to develop without extra work in a cross-platform way" is not. I've never cloned a Rust project and had trouble building out of the box on Linux, but I'd estimate maybe one out of 20 C# projects I clone from Github build for me out of the box with `dotnet build`; the rest either require me manually tweaking the build configs to avoid stuff like hardcoded Windows-style paths or link to system dependencies that don't exist on Linux. I imagine you might argue that this is a property of how people use the language rather than the language itself, but that doesn't really matter from the standpoint of whether it's worth it for developers who don't use Windows to spend any time trying to invest in the ecosystem.
I remember an other 1 tier language ms once had. Anyone remember Visual-J?
On the other hand if we could code in rust and get windows.forms as a ui it might make sense. MS is burning UI layer faster than one can train on
> Attackers found and deliberately targeted URLs that resulted in cache misses, such as non-existent pages with unique paths (404s) as well as temporary redirects (302s)
Go has the same illness like rust. First var name then type. We had that back in basic and i hate it. Some argument it would be better if you declare more than one var in the same line. I never di that. Why cant we have nice things.
It’s important for you to hear that this kind of syntax thing really, really doesn’t matter that much. Having this kind of complaint about languages is a sign that you haven’t worked on compilers or learned about the field of programming language theory. Which is fine! But worth knowing that there are more interesting and important things to argue about.
Aspects of language design that are way more important are: the semantics, including type system, memory model, concurrency model, module system and so on; tooling; performance; FFI and OS interface; and lots of other things.
The reason these things matter more than surface-level syntax stuff is that they change what kinds of problems you can solve with the language, and what tradeoffs you’ll accept if you use it.
Of course, hyperpalatable syntax can be a factor in a language’s success, like Python. But at this point it’s Python’s ecosystem that perpetuates its dominance, and if they made some syntax changes it wouldn’t change that by much.
In response to GP post, it's a valid concerns to programmers (to some extend to machine in form of AI/LLM code generation cost see ref [1]), and certainly we have nice things in programming language as D language aptly shows.
>Aspects of language design that are way more important are: the semantics, including type system, memory model, concurrency model, module system and so on; tooling; performance; FFI and OS interface; and lots of other things.
D have pretty much all of aspects of your main concerns and being much better than Rust and Go [1].
[1] Language Plasticity is More Important Than Ever:
My Company developed a MCP ti control our product we ship to Customers. So we use it inhouse for testing. It was so convenient that multiple Software developer adopted the mcp tosetup there test environents
If I get a better Gemma 26b-a4b MoE model out of it I'm all for it. Really wishing Qwen 3.8 would release a MoE variant of their 27b model size, but I wont complain if google beats them to it.
reply