this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
12 points (92.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

32555 readers
649 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
cat_programmer@lemmy.ml
12
got him (lemy.lol)
submitted 6 months ago by ngn@lemy.lol to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

While I totally agree with that philosophy, it heavily depends on the language.

For Rust, my philosophy is more like this:

  • Impl + fn body don't count, as well as async blocks if they span the whole function
  • do not nest more than one if statement. You probably better using guard clauses or matches
  • do not put loops into an if statement.
  • do not nest loops unless clearly shown to be (X, Y) indexing
  • method chaining is free
  • do not nest closures, unless the nested closure doesn't have a {} block
  • do not use mod unless it's test for the current module. No I don't want to Star Wars scroll your 1000 line file. Split it.
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Doods@infosec.pub -1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

A single match statement inside a function inside an impl is already 4 levels of indentation.

How about this?

The preferred way to ease multiple indentation levels in a switch statement is to align the switch and its subordinate case labels in the same column instead of double-indenting the case labels. E.g.:

switch (suffix) {
case 'G':
case 'g':
        mem <<= 30;
        break;
case 'M':
case 'm':
        mem <<= 20;
        break;
case 'K':
case 'k':
        mem <<= 10;
        /* fall through */
default:
        break;
}

I had some luck applying this to match statements. My example:


let x = 5;

match x {
5 => foo(),
3 => bar(),
1 => match baz(x) {
	Ok(_) => foo2(),
	Err(e) => match maybe(e) {
		Ok(_) => bar2(),
		_ => panic!(),
		}
	}
_ => panic!(),
}

Is this acceptable, at least compared to the original switch statement idea?

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

i personally find this a lot less readable than the switch example. the case keywords at the start of the line quickly signify its meaning, unlike with => after the pattern. though i dont speak for everybody.

[–] Doods@infosec.pub -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How about this one? it more closely mirrors the switch example:

match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => mem -= 30,
'M' | 'm' => mem -= 20,
'K' | 'k' => mem -= 10,
_ => {},
}

How about this other one? it goes as far as cloning the switch example's indentation:

match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => {
	mem -= 30;
        }
'M' | 'm' => {
	mem -= 20;
        }
'K' | 'k' => {
	mem -= 10;
        }
_ => {},
}
[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] Doods@infosec.pub -1 points 6 months ago

Formatters are off-topic for this, styles come first, formatters are developed later.

My other reply:

How about this one? it more closely mirrors the switch example:

match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => mem -= 30,
'M' | 'm' => mem -= 20,
'K' | 'k' => mem -= 10,
_ => {},
}

How about this other one? it goes as far as cloning the switch example's indentation:

match suffix {
'G' | 'g' => {
  mem -= 30;
       }
'M' | 'm' => {
  mem -= 20;
       }
'K' | 'k' => {
  mem -= 10;
       }
_ => {},
}
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Doods@infosec.pub -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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 replaced

impl InputList {
    //snip
}

with mod impl_inputlist; and moved the impl 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 the impl was moved to its own exclusive file, impl_inputlist.rs

Maybe 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.