Youtube hearted comments of k98killer (@k98killer).

  1. 34
  2. 32
  3. 29
  4. 18
  5. 17
  6. 8
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37.  @NoBoilerplate  I'll check out that video. I write primarily typed Python, use pre-conditions and sometimes post-conditions, and use a test- and specification-driven development cycle, so I don't worry much about things being broken. And like I said, the idea of my code being clean and beautiful is reinforced by feedback I have gotten from others who have perused it, so the assertion that nobody will agree with my definition of beauty in this case is false. Maybe there is an argument to be made that Rust development saves time on writing pre- and post-conditions, but whether that offsets the time commitment to learning a new language when I'm already proficient in the three or four that I regularly use is an open question. I can appreciate that there is beauty in that Rust example, at least conceptually, but I wouldn't call it "objectively beautiful" since there is no such thing. Whether or not it is aesthetically appealing also depends upon the surrounding code in my opinion -- part of what makes my code clean is that I use standardized forms that are easy on the eyes (pep8 with my own subjective flare). The ".collect::<Vec<i32>>();" to my eyes does not look particularly clean and beautiful -- it looks like someone copied and pasted html and JavaScript in a confused and haphazard way, but that could be my web dev background coloring my perspective. I also found Java code distasteful for the same reason. Angle brackets are just ugly unless padded with whitespace, and they only make sense as comparison operators in that case.
    2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1