> plenty of very good reasons to criticize C/++, and parsing is a minor one
Ok, fair bit, it's a frustration for me but admittedly not as important as the other differences.
I mention it because it's a wart in C's language design and I figured Rust's safety features are already well-known and heavily discussed. If I want to write a simple tool "ask this tree of .c files how often they use an identifier with name 'X' or type 'Y'", I have to find out the include paths, defines, all kinds of other "noise" just to find out what could be a relatively simple query of the source base.
Re:Curl is C
by Manishearth on Monday March 27, 2017 @12:21PM
(#13969016)
This also means that autocomplete tools usually need to be taught how to build a project. YCM has this whole conf file where you specify the header locations and stuff and it's like rewriting half the makefile.
Re:Curl is C
by steveklabnik on Monday March 27, 2017 @10:59AM
(#13968234)
Fair enough :)
My larger point is that there are plenty of very good reasons to criticize C/++, and parsing is a minor one since parsing is fast, and even if the creation of the AST isn't context-sensitive, verifying its correctness (is this identifier in scope?) still is.
What is the context-sensitive spot in Rust's grammar?