1. 61
  1.  

  2. 7

    Rust just joined the ranks of Paxos and monads.

    1. 11

      Not quite. The title may refer to “easy english”, but what’s meant is the reduced linguistic subset often also called “simple” or “basic” English.

      “Paxos made simple” is not such a text.

      1. 4

        You mean the subset used in https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ?

        1. 3

          Yep, exactly that.

        2. 1

          often also called “simple” or “basic” English.

          Isn’t “Basic English” the name? Why are you putting it in quotes?

          1. 4

            Quotes for readability. Basic is the correct name, but e.g. the Wikipedia itself uses and lists simple as another way to refer to it (and has a “Simple English Wikipedia”).

            1. 4

              It would appear the word “basic” isn’t in the Basic English vocabulary (but “simple” is. And “base” - but I don’t think there’s a (grammar) rule to define/derive “basic” - except maybe the “use words from industry etc.” (special terms).

              So it would make sense that the Basic English term for Basic English is Simple English…

              1. 1

                Ha, that’s a great find!

        3. 11

          The borrow checker is like a burrito.

        4. 4

          Rust sits in an interesting spot between being “fancier C” and “dumber Haskell”. Depending who you ask, it either has “enums with data” or “algebraic data types”.

          Some people who work on Rust are experts in programming language theory. The upside is that they help Rust avoid pitfalls and unsoundness holes in the design, but on the other hand some PLT jargon sips through.

          1. 6

            Maybe some of that “PLT jargon” deserves to be more widely used? (Certainly not all of it, of course.) I mean it doesn’t seem to be a major problem in the Rust community (to my inexperienced eyes) and knowing what concepts like algebraic data types are is sort of useful: “enums with data” doesn’t really point you to a wider compositional framework for thinking about types and data structures.

            1. 2

              I’m confused at what’s being discussed here. Jargon is part of this text, especially introduction of jargon.

              The point of simple English is not avoiding jargon, it’s using a very limited set of words for explanations and avoiding fancy constructions and idioms that put additional load on the reader.

              1. 1

                I guess the problem with simple English is that you reduce the bandwidth the text has. Perhaps the problem isn’t jargon, but rather the assumptions that the readers will know the same jargon you do. Thus, when explaining things, you should put things into their frame of reference. I have little CS grounding, but that doesn’t mean I lack common context…

                1. 3

                  I don’t see the problem you describe. The text is very outspoken (in the first few sentences) on who the target audience are: particularly people that struggle with fancy English text, e.g. 2nd or 3rd language speakers. The whole point is reducing bandwidth problems resulting from additional cognitive load. Jargon is not mentioned as a goal.

                  You may just not be in the audience.

            2. 1

              Interesting, I haven’t heard anyone describe it as “dumber Haskell.” I feel like the language purposefully chose different trade-offs from Haskell, specifically that mutability is not inherently bad (Haskell) but that shared mutability is bad (Rust).

              The only area I’ve heard hardcore PLT people complain about is the lack of GATs, but that is being worked on and is more just a temporary thing.

              1. 1

                That “dumber Haskell” is in jest of course. Rust isn’t going to get HKT or currying, but there’s enough of a type system there to attract attention of some Haskellers.

                1. 1

                  Oh certainly in jest, but every joke has a hint of truth! I’ve just found that Haskellers and other hardcore PLT folk tend to appreciate Rust and Rust’s type system.

                  Of course hardcore Haskellers are on a different level, so I could see that.

            3. 2

              Ah, a way to assure myself that my english isn’t good enough to see any difference ;)

              1. 2

                Do texts written in easy English also benefit dyslexics? The book appears to be a great introduction to Rust.

                1. 3

                  At least at glance, I could not find a reference to that and as dyslexia is (roughly) a problem in shape and order recognition(*), I would also expect that to not be the case. I’m quarter informed here, though, apply appropriate salt. A great, underappreciated feature of publishing text in raw form like markdown instead of PDF or such does have the notable difference though that people can easily make the text more accessible, by e.g. changing spacings and replacing fonts to their needs.

                  Microtypograpy is nice and all, as long as you can switch it off if it doesn’t help you :).

                  (*) there’s tons of different reasonings around it, but let’s not venture there.