Verbosity compared to C?
replyOnly in extra syntax constructs.
But Rust can absolutely do the same thing as C in fewer lines, especially when comparing each's standard features like string support.
I absolutely despise that C convention if abbreviating absolutely every single thing as much as possible. Yeah yeah, that was necessary back in the day when memory was scarce and editors were awful, but come on those days were almost half a century ago by now.
replyRust may be verbose, but at least you can read it without turning into a cynical greybeard subject matter expert first.
I've found that the less real estate my eyes need to scan, the faster I understand the code, even if its more tersely expressed and requires a little decoding. Relatedly, I've come to appreciate a line of code that does the thing rather than one that calls a function whose name might express what the function does, but I might need to go find it and and read its code. That works well if your language supports a terse expression. So I prefer you tersely multiply/reduce a list rather than call a function, but some languages just aren't friendly to that and demand verbosity.
replyThis is why kotlin is so amazing, unusually concise and unusually clear in meaning.
replyRust does so a lot of abbreviation, though. fn, ptr, mut, etc.
replyI kinda love it, because verbosity means you have to rely on completion and that has a negative impact on retention.
replyAnd the terseness is good when you’re familiar with the code.
>"Rust may be verbose, but at least you can read it without turning into a cynical greybeard subject matter expert first."
replyActually stuff like fn, mut etc. feels like mutilation to me. I guess it is highly individual.