The C++ scope resolution operator is beautiful
The C++ scope resolution operator is beautiful
Both zig and go use the dot operator, but I find the '::' operator much more readable.
Vec::new();
Makes it clear that were accessing a static method belonging to the Vec struct/namespace.
Vec.new()
Makes it seem like Vec is an object with a 'new' method.
Am I alone in thinking this?
The rust devs agreed with you...
I used to only use C#, and I liked the simplicity of only using one symbol to access any prop/field/method. But now I've used Rust for a while I do prefer separating the two for the same reasons you mentioned.
So no, you're not alone. Even cross-lang!
C++ was my language of choice for a long time, but I can't say I'm with you on this one. If I'm going to use Vec, I had better know what it is already. Littering the code with a special double-glyph operator when a dot would do is just needless noise to me.
(I won't criticize you for liking it, though. Cheers.)
I don't agree. Many languages differentiate in terms of standards. In Java, your objects start lowercase, so if you see uppercase, its a static call.
:: looks nice, I guess, but many languages and standards improve clarity of code.
in java ovjects start lowercase
by convention only though
That's just convention.
:: is enforced by the compiler.
Yeah, but does that matter? I don't think, I've ever accidentally broken these conventions, where compiler assistance would have been helpful.
It don't get past review if it doesn't follow standards. I'm yet to see a deviation.
If a language is bad because devs do stupid things, they're all bad.
Also:
::in Java is method reference. In Kotlin it's reflection.I'd say if you care a lot about distinguishing contexts it's really the job of the IDE to highlight syntax.
Don't write code as though you're going to read it in plain text imo.
I like how Java uses it. As a C# dev I wish for it sometimes.
Yeah, kind of curious what Go does here then / what the actual experience is like.
It abuses casing for public/private, so presumably there's no way to see whether a given sequence of letters is a variable or a type.In Java, your objects start lowercase, so if you see uppercase, its a static call.
Not really, that's just the way a specific coding style was specified. You're free to refactor all your projects to follow any other coding style if you really want to, and your programs will continue to work just fine.
I don’t understand the C++ hate. I’m definitely biased since I learned it before anything else, but the flow of the code and the object-oriented principles just make sense to me. And yeah, I appreciate the scope resolution operator a lot.