this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
464 points (96.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

27933 readers
616 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30p87@feddit.org 26 points 2 days ago (78 children)

Almost any language is OK, but Rust is just so, so fucking ugly

[–] BehindTheBarrier@programming.dev 18 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I can actually see where this is coming from, as I found Rust hard to read when I started out. I do really like Rust for reference, but I do agree Rust is hard to read for someone that has not learned it.

For example:

return statements that are implicit just because the semicolon isn't there. Even better if they occur inside a if block or something like that. Very hard to understanding when you don't know the syntax rules.

Lambda functions, especially when using move semantics too. They are quite simple, but if you don't know the meaning, it's more arcane characters. Especially when this is used inside lots of chained methods, and maybe a multi-line function in the lambda.

A lot for the if let x =... type of stataments are tough the first time around. Same for match statements.

Defining types for use with function::() and such.

Lifetimes, especially when they are all named a, b, c etc. It quickly gets messy, especially when combined with generics or explicitly defined types.

Macros, though not entry level rust to begin with, they are really cumbersome to decode.

None of these are sins of Rust, but for new people they are a hill to climb, and often hard to just "get" based on previous programming experience and reading the code. Rust can be really hard to approach because of these things. This happens in other languages too, but I do feel Rust has a particularly large amount of new concepts or ways to do something. And this is on top of learning lifetimes and borrow semantics.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 11 points 1 day ago

This is the most sober take in this thread. I was bothered by all these things you mentioned for the first two weeks of using the language. I begrudgingly accepted them for the following two months because I felt the benefits of the language were worth it. Now all of these things feel natural and I don't give them a second thought.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] firelizzard@programming.dev 41 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Almost any language is ok but some ecosystems make me want to turn into a murder hobo (looking at you, JavaScript).

You can't imagine how often I just sweared today about js. What did go through the mind of their designers, when they created this growing disease, and why did web browsers accept this as the lingua franca for the web. So... much... pain...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 42 points 2 days ago (11 children)

Hard disagree. Super beautiful.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Go look at that Lisp kojumbo then tell me Rust is ugly.

(defmethod wake ((object magic-packet) address port)
  (let* ((payload (encode-payload object))
         (size (length payload))
         (socket (usocket:socket-connect nil nil :protocol :datagram :element-type '(unsigned-byte 8))))
    (setf (usocket:socket-option socket :broadcast) t)
    (usocket:socket-send socket payload size :host address :port port)
    (usocket:socket-close socket)))

Actually unreadable.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Maybe Emacs has fried my brain, but that is perfectly readable. Common Lisp has one of the most advanced object systems around, so yea you can write hard to read stuff if you want

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (74 replies)