|
The first one is very clear, I agree. However if I wrote Rust daily, I would probably be familiar with the second one and would prefer it. Here's an article kind of related to that, in this case talking about APL, that I think explains very well the tradeoffs: https://beyondloom.com/blog/denial.html. To try with my own words: programming is about shared understanding of a problem, but also the tools used to solve the problem. Code is text, text has a target audience. When it is experts you can use more complex words, or more domain-specific words. When it's intended for a wider audience, taking the time to explain and properly define things, sometimes multiple times, can be necessary. According to Rust's documentation of Some: > zip returns Some((s, o)) if self is Some(s) and the provided Option value is Some(o); otherwise, returns None > zip_with calls the provided function f and returns Some(f(s, o)) if self is Some(s) and the provided Option value is Some(o); otherwise, returns None Using zip_with seems more appropriate (x.zip_with(y, +) or something) but zip_with is nightly. I also don't like how object chaining makes so that x seems more "fundamental", or "in another category" than y and +, while really x and y are the same, and + is something else. The if solution shows clearly that x and y are the same, by treating them exactly the same. The second solution also introduces a and b from nowhere, doubling the number of variables used in the function. All small things, but I think it can help put words on why precisely the second isn't as readable as it may seem. It's interesting how much can be said about a simple "add" function. |