twelvefloatinghands@lemmy.world
on 11 Oct 2023 14:16
nextcollapse
Damn, I wish rust had that
paperplane@lemmy.world
on 11 Oct 2023 14:18
nextcollapse
Swift does, though using the dollar sign rather than underscores
TheCee@programming.dev
on 11 Oct 2023 15:17
nextcollapse
I’m glad it doesnt.
colonial@lemmy.world
on 11 Oct 2023 15:45
nextcollapse
It wouldn’t be as relevant, since passing a function or method instead of a closure is much easier in Rust - you can just name it, while Ruby requires you to use the method method.
So instead of .map(|res| res.unwrap()) you can do .map(Result::unwrap) and it’ll Just Work™.
jendrik@discuss.tchncs.de
on 11 Oct 2023 19:17
collapse
Except when Type::Method takes a reference, then it doesn’t just work
Anders429@programming.dev
on 11 Oct 2023 19:54
collapse
I sincerely doubt Rust would ever add something like this.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
on 11 Oct 2023 16:11
nextcollapse
That deserves an “always has been” meme… But IMO, Ruby outperled Perl since the beginning.
Perl doesn’t let you redefine the syntax so that you can write the same program multiple ways. All it does is to encourage multiple programs to have the same meaning.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
on 11 Oct 2023 18:22
nextcollapse
I never looked at Ruby, but that doesn’t seem like it would be great for readability (although maybe productivity).
And lets you easily write metal languages due to the way you can pass around blocks. Think configuration as code type stuff.
Knusper@feddit.de
on 11 Oct 2023 18:27
nextcollapse
I do think the unnumbered variant of such anonymous parameters is useful, if you’ve got a team of devs that knows not to misuse them.
In particular, folks who are unexperienced will gladly make massive multi-line transformations, all in one step, and then continue blathering on about it or similar, as if everyone knew what they were talking about and there was no potential for ambiguity.
This is also particularly annoying, because you rarely read code top-to-bottom. Ideally, you should be able to jump into the middle of any code and start reading, without having to figure out what the regional abbreviations or it mean.
bnjmn@programming.dev
on 11 Oct 2023 22:12
nextcollapse
OMG looks like Raku
jeffhykin@lemm.ee
on 11 Oct 2023 22:48
nextcollapse
Is it just me or does it feel kinda unclean for it to just support 1 through 9?
eager_eagle@lemmy.world
on 12 Oct 2023 00:00
collapse
tbf positional arguments are already bad enough. Now if you’re using over 9 positional args… just take a break, go for a short walk, and maybe you’ll come back with a better plan
eager_eagle@lemmy.world
on 11 Oct 2023 23:51
collapse
The liberty to not name things that are obvious.
and that’s yet another way to end up with hard to read code.
Variables hold values that have meaning. Learn how to name things and you’ll write good code.
threaded - newest
Damn, I wish rust had that
Swift does, though using the dollar sign rather than underscores
I’m glad it doesnt.
It wouldn’t be as relevant, since passing a function or method instead of a closure is much easier in Rust - you can just name it, while Ruby requires you to use the
methodmethod.So instead of
.map(|res| res.unwrap())you can do.map(Result::unwrap)and it’ll Just Work™.Except when Type::Method takes a reference, then it doesn’t just work
I sincerely doubt Rust would ever add something like this.
Is ruby the new Perl?
That deserves an “always has been” meme… But IMO, Ruby outperled Perl since the beginning.
Perl doesn’t let you redefine the syntax so that you can write the same program multiple ways. All it does is to encourage multiple programs to have the same meaning.
I never looked at Ruby, but that doesn’t seem like it would be great for readability (although maybe productivity).
People mostly refrain from using it.
Much like people used to create an idiom in Perl and stick to it.
And lets you easily write metal languages due to the way you can pass around blocks. Think configuration as code type stuff.
I do think the unnumbered variant of such anonymous parameters is useful, if you’ve got a team of devs that knows not to misuse them.
In particular, folks who are unexperienced will gladly make massive multi-line transformations, all in one step, and then continue blathering on about
itor similar, as if everyone knew what they were talking about and there was no potential for ambiguity.This is also particularly annoying, because you rarely read code top-to-bottom. Ideally, you should be able to jump into the middle of any code and start reading, without having to figure out what the regional abbreviations or
itmean.OMG looks like Raku
Is it just me or does it feel kinda unclean for it to just support 1 through 9?
tbf positional arguments are already bad enough. Now if you’re using over 9 positional args… just take a break, go for a short walk, and maybe you’ll come back with a better plan
and that’s yet another way to end up with hard to read code.
Variables hold values that have meaning. Learn how to name things and you’ll write good code.
This makes me want to write a function for you to add to numbers where the variables are leftumber and rightnumber, instead of x and y.
if “left” and “right” were relevant for addition, they would indeed be better names
Are you against using a single letter variable like e for element in iterating over things?