Programming

17443 readers

105 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

The C++ scope resolution operator is beautiful (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by 3h5Hne7t1K@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Both zig and go use the dot operator, but I find the '::' operator much more readable.

Vec::new();

Makes it clear that were accessing a static method belonging to the Vec struct/namespace.

Vec.new()

Makes it seem like Vec is an object with a 'new' method.

Am I alone in thinking this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (7 children)

I don't agree. Many languages differentiate in terms of standards. In Java, your objects start lowercase, so if you see uppercase, its a static call.

:: looks nice, I guess, but many languages and standards improve clarity of code.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also: :: in Java is method reference. In Kotlin it's reflection.

I'd say if you care a lot about distinguishing contexts it's really the job of the IDE to highlight syntax.

Don't write code as though you're going to read it in plain text imo.

[–] eluvatar@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

I like how Java uses it. As a C# dev I wish for it sometimes.

load more comments (5 replies)