> Erlang has an extremely unfamiliar syntax, but I don't think that makes it less suitable for building a service.
However, you can learn and understand all of Erlang's syntax in half a day.
Rust's syntax is... less than optimal.
However, you can learn and understand all of Erlang's syntax in half a day.
Rust's syntax is... less than optimal.
Coming from a Java and JavaScript background, the Rust syntax was never a problem for me, it instantly felt like home (the only thing that bugged me was the lack or parenthesis around `if` expressions, and the lack of the `return` keyword at the end of a function but that's really no big deal and I internalized it pretty quickly). Some people complain about the angle bracket `<>` but that's from Java !
The type system can be a bit tricky to understand, for people not used to algebraic types, and the borrow checker and memory management story is hard to grasp, but the syntax, I just don't understand the complaints …
If something clicks immediately for you ,might not click immediately (or at all) for others ;) However, Rust's potential syntax issues arise from the fact that they try to express complex concepts within a limited set of characters (and it's a problem any sufficiently complex language will face), so of course people will complain :)