|
|
|
|
|
|
by still_grokking
1385 days ago
|
|
|
I don't buy that. Good error messages and robust error recovery for syntax errors are possible for almost any kind of language, even very weird ones, with today's modern parser technology. Just have a look at what for example Tree-Sitter does. But the meat of good programming language error messages lies not in the syntax errors. It's in meaningful and informative semantic error messages. And these are almost completely independent of the language's syntax. |
|
|
I personally find rust syntax pretty neat. It's designed to be unambiguous to machines, but that also means it's unambiguous to humans. It has no () around tests, but it mandates {} because that prevents goto fail. It has the classic ML `;` as a separator, not terminator. It's a pragmatic blend of C++ (with generics, namespacing, and the C influence), and ML (expression based, easy to parse, let-binding and type inference).