For downsides, i’d like to add that the lack of function overloading and default parameters can be really obnoxious and lead to [stupid ugly garbage].

A funny one i found in the standard library is in time::Duration. Duration::as_nanos() returns a u128, Duration::from_nanos() only accepts a u64. That means you need to explicitly downcast and possibly lose data to make a Duration after any transformations you did.

They cant change from_nanos() to accept u128 instead because that’s breaking since type casting upwards has to be explicit too (for some reason). The only solution then is to make a from_nanos_u128() which is both ugly, and leaves the 64 bit variant hanging there like a vestigial limb.

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 =(