Earlier quoted context omitted.
nta you're replying to, but as someone who doesn't know rust, on first glance it seems like it's littered with too many special symbols and very verbose. as i understand it this is required because of the very granular low level control rust offers maybe unreadable is too strong of a word, but there is a valid point of it looking unapproachable to someone new
I think the main issue people who don't like the syntax have with it is that it's dense . We can imagine a much less dense syntax that preserves the same semantics, but IMO it'd be far worse. Using matklad's first example from his article on how the issue is more the semantics[1] pub fn read >(path: P) -> io::Result > { fn inner(path: &Path) -> io::Result > { let mut file = File::open(path)?; let mut bytes = Vec::new…
Sort of like training wheels, eventually you stop using it.