8 ms·

Rust is unreadable by default

• shmerl 1y ago
  Syntax could be less terse and abbreviated, I agree. But it's not unreadable. On the other hand some complain that Rust sometimes is too verbose, so I guess it's some balance.
  • flohofwoe 1y ago
    > But it's not unreadable. That's just because you got used to it ;) (same as with modern C++ really, if you've used C++ long enough you become blind to its problems)
    • sagacity 1y ago
      This is completely true. "Regular" Rust and C++ is fairly readable, but a quick Google for "Higher Kinded Types in Rust" ends up with [0]: fn ap<A, B, F: Fn(&A) -> B>(x: &<Self as Plug<F>>::R, arg: &<Self as Plug<A>>::R) -> <Self as Plug<B>>::R where Self: Plug<A> + Plug<B> + Plug<F>; [0] https://hugopeters.me/posts/14/ https://hugopeters.me/posts/14/
  • throwawaymaths 1y ago
    verbosity is not really the same as nonreadability. i would say the biggest factor for nonreadability is not being able to chase function calls using simple text search, with as few indirections as possible. proc macros and to a lesser degree traits make that difficult.
    • shmerl 1y ago
      Yeah. You can to use LSP to work around it for usage search (which is really helpful), but it's definitely not a human readable case if function name is obscured.