For sure, but as long as clickbait works they’ll keep doing it.

To be fair, “an entire x” does have markedly different connotation than “x”. The emphasis is that it’s, well, the entirety of x. It’s the difference between “i ate the cereal” and “i ate all the cereal”.

Make them optional lmao. I dont have a 4k screen, havent ever had one, and wont buy one for a very long time. Why am i storing these assets i will never use?

I mean to be fair, those errors arent really meant for you (the end user) in the first place.

I feel like it’s like pointers.

“Variable” refers to the label, i.e. a box that can contain anything (like *ptr is a pointer to [something we dont know anything about])

Immutable describes the contents, i.e. the stuff in the box cant change. (like int* ptr describes that the pointer points to an int)

Rust makes it very obvious that there’s a difference between constants and immutable variables, mainly because constants must be compile time constants.

What do you call it when a variable cant change after its definition, but isnt guaranteed to be the same on each function call? (E.g. x is an array that’s passed in, and we’re just checking if element y exists)

It’s not a constant, the contents of that label are “changing”, but the label’s contents cant be modified inside the scope of that function. So it’s a variable, but immutable.

Please don’t say the new language you’re being asked to learn is “unintuitive”. That’s just a rude word for “not yet familiar to me”…The idea that some features are “unintuitive” rather than merely temporarily unfamiliar is just getting in your way.

Well i mean… that’s kinda what “unintuitive” means. Intuitive, i.e. natural/obvious/without effort. Having to gain familiarity sorta literally means it’s not that, thus unintuitive.

I dont disagree with your sentiment, but these people are using the correct term. For example, python len(object) instead of obj.len() trips me up to this day because 99% of the time i think [thing] -> [action], and most language constructs encourage that. If I still regularly type an object name, and then have to scroll the cursor back over and type “len(”, i cant possibly be using my intuition. It’s not the language’s “fault” - because it’s not really “wrong” - but it is unintuitive.

it makes what looks like formatting an arbitrary complex operation and that it doesn’t improve readability that much.

What’s silly to me about that reasoning is that all workarounds are equally less convenient, have less readability, and the effect is identical to just letting me put whatever between the brackets. I genuinely dont understand the downside i guess.

Calling .join on a vector can have side effects too, except the “we’re concatting strings” is at the end rather than the beginning (and could obfuscate the fact that the end result is a string). It has just as much room for abuse as a long format!(). Even with just format!(), anything you could do inbetween the brackets, you can do outside the brackets in the arguments anyway. At least when it’s between the brackets, i know exactly where it’s going and when without having to juggle the string pieces and assemble them in my head.

in this case it’s about 80% function calls. They’re convenience functions for assembly instructions, so they’re of the form:

load(Reg::D, "A"),
load_const(5),

which is more useful than variables would be. I guess i could use .join or a crate like concat_string? Either way i sorely miss arbitrary expression format strings from python =(