this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
446 points (92.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
32562 readers
370 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I totally agree with that philosophy, it heavily depends on the language.
For Rust, my philosophy is more like this:
Why have an async block spanning the whole function when you can mark the function as async? That's 1 less level of indentation. Also, this quite is unusable for rust. A single match statement inside a function inside an impl is already 4 levels of indentation.
Those async blocks exist when doing async in traits.
And I never said I respected the 4 level of indentations. That's exactly the point of those rules. Keep it lowly indented but still readable
How about this?
I had some luck applying this to
match
statements. My example:Is this acceptable, at least compared to the original
switch
statement idea?It's a lot less readable imo. As well than a
cargo fmt
later and it's gone (unless there's a nightly setting for it)Formatters are off-topic for this, styles come first, formatters are developed later.
My other reply:
I mean, I use formatters everywhere I can exactly so I don’t have to think about code style. I’ll take a full code base that’s consistent in a style I dislike, over having another subjective debate about which style is prettier or easier to read, any day. So whatever
cargo fmt
spits out is exactly what I’ll prefer, regardless of what it looks like, if only for mere consistency.i personally find this a lot less readable than the
switch
example. thecase
keywords at the start of the line quickly signify its meaning, unlike with=>
after the pattern. though i dont speak for everybody.How about this one? it more closely mirrors the switch example:
How about this other one? it goes as far as cloning the switch example's indentation:
the problem is that, while skimming the start of each lines, nothing about
'G' | 'g'
tells me that its a branch. i need to spend more time parsing it. mind you, this may simply be a problem with rust's syntax, not just ur formatting.Well, of course you can have few indent levels by just not indenting, I don't think the readability loss is worth it though. If I had give up some indentation, I'd probably not indent the impl {} blocks.
I just got some idea yesterday regarding
impl
blocks, ready to be my respondent?I had a big
impl
block with 4 levels of indentation, so I cut the block, and replacedwith
mod impl_inputlist;
and moved theimpl
block to a new file, and did not indent anything inside that block.The advantage this has over just not indenting the
impl
block in place, is that people will have difficulty distinguishing between what's in the block and what's outside, and that's why theimpl
was moved to its own exclusive file, impl_inputlist.rsMaybe I am overstressing indentation. Ss there something wrong with my setup that prevents me from accepting 4-space indentation?
I use:
Editor: Neovide
Font: "FiraCode Nerd Font Mono:h16" (16px fonts are addicintg)
Monitor: 1366x768, 18.5 inch, 10+ years old, frankenstein-ly repaired Samsung monitor.
Distance: I sit at about 40-60 Cm from my monitor.
That leaves me with a 32x99 view of code excluding line numbers and such.
I don't know enough Rust to understand by what you mean by the last one. My understanding was that
mod name
was just declaring the module that this file depends on. Could you explain what I should do instead? Since your other statements I totally agree with, I should probably agree with the last one.mod name
declares that the module should be compiled and reachable as a submodule of the current module. This assumes that you have a file or directory of the name in the right place. This is what you should do.You can also declare a module like this:
mod name {...}
where you just put the content in the block. The two are functionally equivalent, from the compilers perspective.I don't understand how to follow this bullet point that I was replying to.
I already know what mod does in a basic sense, I wanted to know what the commenter meant by this.
This point advocates against the use of mod with content in a file unless it is used for a testing module. A common pattern is to have the unit tests for a module inside the main module file. Tests in rust are just specially tagged functions. To avoid compilation costs in non-test builds and false unused code warnings you can put all test related code in a submodule and tag that module with
#[cfg(test)]
. That way the module will only be included and compiled if the crate is being compiled to run tests.The Star wars thing refers to scrolling long text files similar to the intro of the starwars movies where a long text is scrolled for the viewer.
Oh so its just referring to writing the mod's code in the same file the mod is declared in being bad form? That seems very reasonable; since the point of a module is code separation so it makes sense to always put it in its own file. Good, I'm already doing that at least!
what if I need to nest
if let
sUse a
match
? Unless it's for guard clauses, a match is fine enoughwhat if i need to
if let
on the result of anotherif let
Oh, then you use
and_then()
or something similar.There's also the possibility to use the guard clauses patern and do
let <...> = <...> else {}
.And finally, you can always split into another function.
It's not straight rules. It depends on what makes it more readable for your case.
what about
if
on a boolean followed by anif let
I'ma gonna steal this.