this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
62 points (98.4% liked)

Programming

26909 readers
330 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

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not saying that named parameters are bad, but the builder pattern serves the same purpose and imo it's more ergonomic.

TrainBuilder::new()
  .with_electric_motor(true)
  .with_width(1.0)
  .build()

I don't care about the color of the train or the amount of wheels, I just want the default train with a few changed parameters.

If you do named parameters in rust, you would need to set every parameter. The only way to not set every parameter is to give a special meaning to the Default trait. But that is uncommon to happen in rust. And many structs that could easily derive Default don't.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

If you do named parameters in rust, you would need to set every parameter.

If that's the condition, yeah, it's bad. The good thing about how Python handles it is that they can still be mandatory or optional. And that makes it a more flexible option than the builder pattern because it applies to any function or method.