How is this a negative? I'd rather program fail at compile than runtime, and rather it fail loudly than quietly.
Also Rust doesn't prevent you from making optimal ordering, just a tinge more verbose.
let geese = something(lots_of_birds).bunch().of_chained().functions();
let geese = geese.somehow().just().count_them(); // We don't actually need geese, just #
Could you name that first variable something else? Yeah. But, it's geese, it's not the number of geese, it's a different type, but it is just geese, that's the right name for it. OK, maybe rename the second variable? But number_of_geese is a stupid variable name, I would push back on a patch which tried to name a variable that because it's stupid. n_geese isn't stupid, but it is ugly and Rust is OK with me just naming it geese, so, geese it is.However, if you do run into trouble those Clippy rules can save you. You probably will find you don't want them all (or perhaps any of them) at deny, but Rust is content for you to decide you only want a warning (which you can then suppress where appropriate) and importantly these are three rules, you might well decide you only hate shadow_same or shadow_reuse or something. Here's the link specifically for shadow_reuse as an example:
https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/#shadow_reuse
I agree! I was just illustrating the kind of tradeoff that has to be made for that to be possible.
Instead, to sort a slice of floats, you have to explicitly specify what would happen for the non-ordinary cases; e.g. by using `.sort_by(f32::total_cmp)`, where f32::total_cmp()[2] is one possible interpretation of a total ordering of floats. This requires writing more code even for cases where it would be completely unnecessary.
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.so... [2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.f32.html#method.tota...