4 ms·
I must be in the minority then, because rust's syntax doesn't bother me in the least. The only exception is the method::<Type>() that's sometimes necessary. W
by munmaek 7y ago
I must be in the minority then, because rust's syntax doesn't bother me in the least.
The only exception is the method::<Type>() that's sometimes necessary.
When I write or read rust code the symbols just sort of disappear.
- fluffything 7y agoI actually like `method::<Type>()`, but I did not used to like it when I started learning Rust. Nowadays every time I have to go back to C++ and read `method<Type>()` I need to parse whether this is `(method < Type) > ())` or something else. Luckily for me, C++ introduced the `method.template <Type>()` syntax... but over that I prefer `::<Type>`. I also prefer ::<Type> over Scala and D's syntaxes for some reason. I find Scala syntax for this more complex, and I find D syntax too simple.
- rapsey 7y agoReading countless rust threads has left me with the opinion that some people are just unadaptable. They cling to what they consider right way too hard. It is not that they are wrong, their knowledge is right for the sphere they work in, but they extrapolate it too far and refuse to get out of their comfort zone.