Open HaoYang670 opened 1 year ago
IMHO, I would definitely say yes.
I think it would be interesting as Rust has a far more graceful type system than C++, and so the examples are bound to more closely look like Haskell. I am currently rewriting the C++ snippets in Nim as I go on my fork, for what it's worth.
However: the current design of this book is not set up to facilitate replacing the C++ examples as it is with the Haskell ones. Both Rust and Nim are imperative languages and so would indeed need to replace the imperative examples: and in addition, a fair amount of prose assumes that the imperative examples are indeed in C++. (This is also a problem with the Haskell examples: I see the Scala/OCaml/Reason versions have "solved" this by simply appending their examples under the Haskell ones.)
I think the best way to do this and what I will make a PR for Nim for (if desired and if I finish it) is to maintain separate forks of the book and link them from the main README here.
We have had several alternative versions for Haskell, such as OCaml, Scala ... . Is it a good idea to create a Rust version as an alternative of C++?