Notes on a "smaller Rust"

Last summer, I wrote a blog post about what I would remove from Rust if I were trying to create a simpler language with a similar type discipline but a less strict performance profile. Here's the link:

This winter and spring I took some time to actually work on designing this language. The most interesting development was an abstract distinction between "data" and "resource" types (which is latent in Rust is a somewhat limited way). I wrote an updated post with my new thoughts, based on this experiment, here:

This post is not to propose any change to Rust (even my brief discussion of "Autoclone" at the end I'm not very interested in talking about further now). But I thought these posts would be of interest more generally to the language enthusiasts on this forum, and I wanted to bring them to peoples' attention.

14 Likes

Minor typo in 2nd blog post?

it may require novel research to create collection types that could sometimes have the performance calculus of persistent collections (cheap to copy, expensive to mutate) and sometimes have the performance calculus of mutable collections (cheap to copy, expensive to mutate)