Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shmerl 331 days 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.
2 comments
throwawaymaths 331 days 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.

link
shmerl 331 days 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.
link
flohofwoe 331 days 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)

link
sagacity 331 days 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/
link