Re: Intervention needed?

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

OK, playing the devils's advocate again.

> As far as I can see, Rust's only innovation is safer pointers,

Which is, arguably, the innovation many people have been waiting for.

> but it still has 
> a bad design that requires the use of pointers.

Why it is bad?
Before, the criticism of pointers was based on the fact that pointers are dangerous. So, Ada is better, because it avoids these dangers.
Now we have guys with *safe* pointers and what? They are bad, because they use pointers? And pointers are bad, because they are dange... wait, something's went wrong.

If the problem with pointers is that they are dangerous, then safe pointers solve that problem. No?

> In Ada, pointers are never 
> needed.

And, surprise, nobody cares. Because now their pointers are safe.

> Other than that, Rust seems to be a typical C-family language with all the 
> dangers that implies.

What dangers? Like for example pointers? Oh, wait...

And you still wonder why you are not convincing and cannot attract newcomers to the language.

So, seriously - what's wrong with pointers in Rust?
My personal argument would be that their syntax and learning curve behind the involved idioms are making the code very difficult to comprehend. But this is the rational argument that was not mentioned here, you have instead stayed at the level of "curly braces are bad". Are there other rational arguments?

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com