DWin

They've aggressively stated they're a cis woman and has found the implication of her being trans incredibly insulting.

You monster, I prefer denial

I tmux my vim session so I never have to exit it, I just end the session and NOTHING OF NOTE HAPPENS

Yeah I completely agree with you, but sometimes there are other things that jankier languages allow you to do. Say in python, you can do direct property assignment. This is gonna be annoying for someone later to figure out why their object has suddely changed, and without getters and setters, you'll have a harder time picking apart what's going on. The benefit though is that it's very quick to just tack on a property onto some global object and then have that read elsewhere down the road.

It sucks, and you will curse yourself later, like you don't even know what type it is, or maybe it's just null, however it did allow you to ship a project. Maybe that bodge solution is indicative of needing a complete overhaul on how you structure your project, but until you get to that point where you've scoped out what the final idea looks like, it might not be time for static typing and good code design.

I also think that static typing and such makes you move a lot slower when making changes. I love rust to bits, but maintaining an old project is like wading through treacle. I only jump towards using it now once I've got a really great understanding of all the needs of the system, and have the time to really think about the problem in its entirety. Maybe you suddenly need a mutable self in somewhere that you didn't before, perhaps that means going and refactoring a whole load of traits that were designed without mutability (for good reason).

Hey its better than nothing? Haha

If performance isn't an issue, I'd take it over nothing for long term support

Time to delivery is important. Moving quickly withing a language and frameworks that prioritise speed over safety gets a product out the door is important when testing whether a business idea holds merit. Once you're established with a better scope of the project you should be rewriting this in a static language.

Dynamically typed interpreted languages should never be used for long term support imo

You don't have to use the platform. Competition is good, and steam taking 30% is massive. I'm a huge fan of steam but the fears of what happens post-gabe should have us all wanting other companies to put pressure on them. Hopefully it'll drive them to promise continued pro-consumer practices such as proton (let's gloss over DRM)

It feels like maybe this could be a code structure issue, but within your example what about something like this?

fn main(){
    let mut counter = 0;
    let output_array = array.into_iter()
        .map(|single_item| {
            // breaks the map if the array when trying to access an item past 5
            if single_item > 5 {
                break;
            }
        })
        .collect()
        .map(|single_item| {
            // increment a variable outside of this scope that's mutable that can be changed by the previous run
            counter += 1;
            single_item.function(counter);
        })
        .collect();
}

Does that kinda syntax work for your workflow? Maybe it'll require you to either pollute a single map (or similar) with a bunch of checks that you can use to trigger a break though.

Most of the time I've been able to find ways to re-write them in this syntax, but I also think that rusts borrowing system although fantastic for confidence in your code makes refactoring an absolute nightmare so often it's too much of a hassle to rewrite my code with a better syntax.

Oh sorry, I misread what you typed and went on a tangent and just idly typed that in.

One thing you could do for your situation if you're planning on iterating over some array or vector of items is to use the inbuilt iterators and the chaining syntax. It could look like this

let output_array = array.into_iter()
    .map(|single_item| {
        // match here if you want to handle exceptions
    })
    .collect();

The collect also only collects results that are Ok(()) leaving you to match errors specifically within the map.

This chaining syntax also allows you to write code that transverses downwards as you perform each operation, rather than transversing to the right via indentation.

It's not perfect and sometimes it's felt a bit confusing to know exactly what's happening at each stage, particularly if you're trying to debug with something mid way through a chain, but it's prettier than having say 10 levels of nesting due to iterators, matching results, matching options, ect.

Just use this syntax

let myResultObject = getResult() 
let item = match myResultObject {
	Ok(item) => item, 
	Err(error) => {
		return;
	} 
};

Yup, never nest.

All the conditions should be checked and returned if they failed as you go through the function with the successful response being the last line.

Eh, in my experience that's not how development works. With every new tool to improve efficiency, the result is just more features rather than using your new found time to improve your code base.

It's not just from the publishers and shareholders either. Fixing technicial debt issues is hard, and the solutions often need a lot of time for retrospection. It's far easier to add a crappy new feature ontop and call it a day. It's the lower effort thing to do for everyone, management and the low down programmers alike.