How else am I to justify my purchase of a widescreen monitor?

“Game dev… Just force Rust into it”

What’s wrong with Rust for game dev? It seems similar to C++, and C# which are the dominant languages.

I can see arguments that the current projects have poor approaches, but not that the language itself is ill-suited.

@[email protected] seems to think you’re referring the instance lemmy.blahaj.zone, instead of the blahaj they have as profile pic

From the first syntax examples on Wikipedia:

fn main() {
    let foo = 10; 
    // Suddenly, types are implicit now. A safe language should never have implicit types (now it's the (IDEs) implementations judgement which type that is. Combined with the variable shadowing "feature", this seems like a major clusterfuck. Now the IDE is the sole thing to tell you that you totally fucked up the logic, and both declarations/definitions (well which one is it? Would be nice to always have a direct KEYWORD telling you which type this fucking variable has. But no, the lazy piece of shit Rust 'programmer' left that as an exercise to the dear reader. Because in they just need to leave that part out instead of explicitly stating "I'm a lazy piece of shit" by *instead* typing 'auto'.) This is just Python-level BS. Yes, I also hate C++ for its auto keyword - but at least it explicit.
    println!("The value of foo is {foo}");
    let foo = 20;
    println!("The value of foo is {foo}");
}

fn add_two(x: i32) -> i32 {
// That is, again, the syntax of Python. Why? Because Python is explicitly untyped. So having types be a *literal* afterthought is Ok. They're fully optional anywhere there. Now we're in Rust. They're sometimes optional, sometimes not, but they're always preferred. Yet, they're also an afterthought, seemingly.
    x + 2
    // Implicit statements are bad. Very bad. They so much invite to glossing over stuff, especially when your brain expects to see something else. Also, having every statement ended with ;, except context blocks, but suddenly *not* having statements ending with ;, is fucking ugly (which is the entire point of this rant). It's completly inconsistent. Which in itself is a huge magnet for errors.
}

if x > 5 {
// Now why would you leave the parantheses, which are a major contributor to readability, away. Or even allow this. Rust is just memory safe, like dozens of other mainstream languages, but continues by allowing, promoting and requiring hazardous practices.
    println!("value is greater than five");
}

Now I’m slowly getting annoyed from typing on phone (at least in nvim), and my throat gets clogged with mucus again.

Remember, some of that are subjective preferences and opinions. And the core idea of Rust - fast but safe programs - is good, yet very obvious and not innovative at all, while the syntax and implementation (of cargo (yes I like to wait an hour for a simple webapp to compile because there aren’t binary crates and cargo just doesn’t multicore 99% of the time)) is subpar to something that’s hailed as the savior for everyone and everything by such a large cult.

This isn’t about some feature of the language being good or bad. It’s about Rust being ugly or not. The things I mentioned will always look ugly in the source code.

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

I’m not saying I don’t understand them. I’m saying the syntax is terrible. Compare it to Ruby (or any other modern language) and it’s abundantly clear.

python (uses syntax not available in any other top 25 language)

print([j**2 for j in [2, 3, 4, 5]]) # => [4, 9, 16, 25]

ruby (normal chain syntax with map)

puts [2, 3, 4, 5].map{|j| j**2}

even kotlin is more readable, even though you have to convert to a double and back kotlin

val list = listOf(1,2,3,4)
println(list.map{it.toDouble().pow(2.0).toInt()})

For nested cases it’s even more apparent:

python

digits = [1, 2, 3]
chars = ['a', 'b', 'c']    
print([str(d)+ch for d in digits for ch in chars if d >= 2 if ch == 'a'])    
# => ['2a', '3a']

ruby

digits = [1, 2, 3]
chars = ['a', 'b', 'c']   
digits.product(chars).select{ |d, ch| d >= 2 && ch == 'a' }.map(&:join)

kotlin

val digits = listOf(1, 2, 3)
val chars = listOf('a', 'b', 'c')
println(digits.flatMap { d ->
    chars.filter { ch -> d >= 2 && ch == 'a' }.map { ch -> "${d}${ch}" }})

just from a base level, you have to read the middle of the comprehension first, then the end, then the beginning. It’s a completely backwards way to write and read code. unlike other languages that use a ‘functional’ approach, where it’s chained methods or pipes, etc. Even Elixir, which does have list comprehensions, reads and writes in the proper order:

elixir

for x <- 0..100, x * x > 3, do: x * 2