I think the Rust style that uses ”constructorless” struct initialization really makes the code too verbose in this case. It’s nice and explicit in a way but having to say e.g
entrypoint: ”main”
Convention over configuration isn’t always the answer, but some times at least it can help reduce clutter.
In the future the api will perhaps have builders as an option.
I'm not sure if the builder pattern is better than designated initialization... AFAIK in Rust you can get something similar (fill up missing members with their default values) with ..Default::default(), like:
&BlaDesc {
bla: 1,
blub: 2,
..Default::default()
}
Rust has more syntactic elements than the C, in this code that’s clear, but cleanliness can mean different things.
Rust has a module system, so no global namespace issues, but does require all of the :: separators.
Rust has cleaner ways of dealing with cross platform compile time switches, thus we don’t see the CPP macros for different platform targets.
To me, those are cleaner, but I’m familiar with Rust and C, which is why I asked.