Interesting how the language seems to skip the traditional for loop and just use the for each style.
I'm not convinced that const is useful. Unlike mutable, it requires an explicit type and must be assigned from a literal not a function return value. It provides no conceptual difference from mutable and seems like a useless option if we consider premature optimization to be the root of all evil.
Curious to see a loop unconditionally construct. Rust has no issue with requiring certain design with syntax and removes the traditional for loop, but it seems the language considers this luxury worth expanding the syntax for.
The video didn't mention it but rust also doesn't have increment and decrement operators.
Would you take advantage of returning without the return keyword? Think it's good practice to be explicit there?
Interesting how literal numbers are typed so explicitly. A breath of fresh air compared to C integer types. Also nice to be able to use underscores to improve large number readability.
It's nice to return on the right side of a function definition. C++ can too but it's bolted on.
Destructuring could come in handy!
Interesting how numbers store negatives in a defined way. A lot of traditional languages and low level APIs seem to leave things undefined less they hurt the tiniest bit of performance in unlikely situations, readability be damned everywhere.
Interesting how of statements don't require parenthesis. Is that normal in modern languages, I see the same in Python.
Tuples are variably lengthened collects if several types on the heap. Arrays are fixed length single type collections on the more efficient stack.
Rust has no do while loop.