zlacker

And here I was thinking we were talking about the syntax.

My Ruby claim doesn't hold much weight either if we're talking about the actual implementation.

C++ templates look like an entirely new language within the language.

Rust and Java make generics fit within the aesthetics and ergonomics of the language.

If anything feels "bolted on" to Rust, it's proc macros and (to a lesser degree) async.

>>echelo+(OP)
Oh I see. Yeah, perhaps slightly for the syntax. I suppose Java's idiom of naming classes (its only user defined types) with capital letters stands out as more similar and so in Java our growable array of geese is ArrayList<Goose>, in Rust it's Vec<Goose> but in C++ std::vector<Goose> or perhaps std::vector<goose> if we're copying the style of the standard library.

It doesn't feel like very much, but now that you spell it out I guess I do see it.

>>echelo+(OP)
> C++ templates look like an entirely new language within the language.

Templates cover more than just generics. Java full-sale lifted its generics syntax from sepples. I'm curious how you draw the line between the two, when all 3 of them use the angle bracket declaration lists bolted onto the symbol name, a unique style invented by CFront 3. Compare with the generics syntax found in contemporaries like ML, Miranda, Ada, Modula-3 and so on.