As someone new to Rust, I look at the latter and see `.zip()` (apparently unrelated to python zip?), and then a lambda/block which intuitively feels like a heavyweight thing to use for adding (even though I'm like 90% sure the compiler doesn't make this heavyweight).
By comparison, the first one is straightforward and obvious. It's certainly kinda "ugly" in that it treats Options as very "dumb" things. But I don't need to read any docs or think about what's actually happening when I read the ugly version.
So TLDR: This reads a bit like "clever" code or code-golfing, which isn't always a bad thing, especially if the codebase is mature and contributors are expected to mentally translate between these versions with ease.
What you find "clever" or not is really a function of what you are most used to seeing. There are likely many folks who use combinators frequently who find them easier to read, myself included.
The first example, to me, is the worst of all worlds, if you want to be explicit use `match`. Otherwise, having a condition then using `unwrap` just feels like it's needlessly complicated for no reason... Just adding my subjective assessment to the bikeshed.
In the first example—the longer, tedious one—I have to look at the condition to make sure the resulting `unwrap`s never actually happen, and if I reason about it wrong I get an application panic.
x.zip(y).map(|(a, b)| a + b )
The above is 100% clear, can obviously never panic, trivially produces optimal code, and is how you'd write the exact same operation to add elements between sets, arrays, or anything else iterable.
People act like the above requires a Ph.D. in Haskell when it really requires about fifteen minutes of playing around with basic functional concepts that are in at least half the popular programming languages these days. At which point you realize a ton of annoyingly tedious problems can be solved in one line of code that can be easily comprehended by anyone else who's done the same thing.
It's the same thing as driving on the highway. Anyone driving slower than you is an idiot, anyone driving faster than you is a maniac.
> So TLDR: This reads a bit like "clever" code or code-golfing, which isn't always a bad thing, especially if the codebase is mature and contributors are expected to mentally translate between these versions with ease.
You contradict yourself. You can’t deride it as “clever” (whatever the quotes mean) and then in the next breath say that it might be a practical style.
And yes, Rust code in the wild does look like this.
By comparison, the first one is straightforward and obvious. It's certainly kinda "ugly" in that it treats Options as very "dumb" things. But I don't need to read any docs or think about what's actually happening when I read the ugly version.
So TLDR: This reads a bit like "clever" code or code-golfing, which isn't always a bad thing, especially if the codebase is mature and contributors are expected to mentally translate between these versions with ease.