In my previous post, I talked about programming language design, and try to discern some heuristics for what features should be added to a programming language, on my way to explaining why Rust should not include inheritance as a feature.
I’d like to expand more on that blog post now (so I guess it’s become a series?). Do I think Rust is perfect how it is? (No.) Are there features that I want in Rust that Rust currently does not have?

The Coded Message's resource offers insights, tutorials, and resources for software developers and technology enthusiasts. Readers can learn about coding best practices, software architecture patterns, and emerging technologies. With articles, tutorials, and code samples, The Coded Message provides  guidance and expertise for building software applications and advancing technical skills.

The Coded Message

Explores potential features for Rust programming language, examining two specific proposals: fields in traits (which would allow trait-defined data fields with polymorphic access) and self-referential structs (enabling structs where one field borrows from another). The author evaluates fields in traits as potentially useful but not essential, while strongly advocating for self-referential structs as addressing a significant gap in Rust's current capabilities. The discussion includes technical implementation details, limitations, and how these features would interact with Rust's existing borrow checker and type system.

What Features Should Rust Have? Part II

<p>My dream is to people stop pushing bad ideas from the languages to Rust. Why inheritance isn’t a thing and will not be a thing and why it’s just bad idea was described multiple times. Please stop and accept reality</p>
