Rant after trying Rust a bit

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/06/2015 07:50 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 at 19:56:37 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 08/05/2015 07:32 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> Mathematical language is geared toward generality and correctness, not
>>> practicality. That makes sens in the context of math, that do not in the
>>> context of every day programming.
>>
>> I don't see what you are trying to get at here, but I guess it is
>> almost entirely unrelated to choosing a notation for string
>> concatenation.
>
> Well, I don't think practicality is the main issue, but the mnemonic
> aspect of syntax is important.
>
> It is not unreasonable to make the identity of operators/functions
> consist of both name and parameter types like in C++ and D. So you don't
> have "+" as the operator name, you have "+(int,int)" and
> "+(string,string)".
> ...

Certainly, but overloading is not always a good idea.

> It has been argued that functional languages would benefit from teaching
> functional programming in a less mathematical manner (e.g. talk about
> "callbacks" rather than "monads" etc):
>
> https://youtu.be/oYk8CKH7OhE
>

That's not less "mathematical". It is less abstract, maybe. Also, I 
think he is optimizing for people who pick up the language on their own. 
(i.e. it is not really about "teaching" in any traditional sense.)