• Lucy :3@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Average Rust code:

    macro_rules! sum {
        ( $initial:expr $(, $expr:expr )* $(,)? ) => {
            $initial $(+ $expr)*
        }
    }
    
    fn remove_prefix<'a>(mut original: &'a str, prefix: &str) -> &'a str
    
    let mut up = 1;
        'outer: loop {
    

    Hell I don’t want to know what you define as ugly then.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        What language are they then? They’re not Python, JS, <insert any other language here>

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          You used macro_rules, which is not common at all. Most rust files don’t contain any macro definition.

          This code doesn’t even compile. There is a random function definition, and then there are loose statements not inside any code block.

          The loop is also annotated, which is not common at all, and when loops are annotated it’s a blessing for readability. Additionally, the loop (+annotation) is indented for some reason.

          And the loop doesn’t contain any codeblock. Just an opening bracket.

          Also, the function definition contains a lifetime annotation. While they are not uncommon, I wouldn’t say the average rust function contains them. Of course their frequency changes a lot depending on context, but in my experience most functions I write/read don’t have lifetime annotations at all.

          Yes, what you wrote somewhat resembles rust. But it is in no way average rust code.

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t know if anyone would argue Rust macros are beautiful. If someone does they should be checked out by a doctor.
      Speaking as a fan of Rust.