It's fairly idiomatic so you get used to it but if you prefer something a little more C-ish you can write it like that (as a side note the code in TFA forgets t

It's fairly idiomatic so you get used to it but if you prefer something a little more C-ish you can write it like that (as a side note the code in TFA forgets to import std::env and BufWriter): use std::env::args; fn main() { let expletive = match args().nth(1) { Some(arg) => arg, None => "y".into(), }; loop { println!("{}", expletive); } } This is the equivalent to the unoptimized C version. I would argue that it's a little more readable too, substituting "loop" instead of the idiomatic "for(;;)" and the more verbose match syntax instead of the ternary (the terser rust equivalent being the `unwrap_or` you seemed to dislike). Personally I think I'd use the "unwrap_or" version, when you're familiar with the language it's completely transparent, easier to parse and expresses intent better I think. For an outsider I can see why it would look like a strange incantation though (but the same could be said about ternaries or CL's "do" construct for instance). The only thing I'd deem inelegant here is the `"y".into()`. It's probably not obvious what it does and why it's necessary to somebody not familiar with Rust.