3 ms·
I've said it in other comments on HN over the years, but yes - I agree. That `.variant` syntax is annoying as hell to dig through when you don't have an IDE to
by Klonoar 2y ago
I've said it in other comments on HN over the years, but yes - I agree.
That `.variant` syntax is annoying as hell to dig through when you don't have an IDE to rely on for jumping around. Rust (or your choice of other more explicit language) is just generally way more clear about what's being used.
The way I usually settle on describing it is that this feature solved for people writing code, but code is read more than it's written, and thus I don't believe this tradeoff was worthwhile.
- afdbcreid 2y agoYou will probably be sad to hear that allowing to omit the type in Rust is considered, and has been proposed many times.
- Klonoar 2y agoI can only hope that it's been proposed many times and not actioned on before means there's been enough pushback, considering one of the entire points of the language is the explicit nature of it. Do you have a link for an RFC or GitHub issue or anything? Would be curious to see.