Who did it better?

Those are both easy to extend. What are you on about?

Left

call me when it's as easily extensible as

>I can't read, I don't know what I am talking about but my opinion is very important
Sums up Jow Forums

Is poorly extensible and can only handle adding additional text to be concatenated with other matches. what if the change was as simple as "print FissBuss instead of FizzBuzz"?

Meanwhile both of the entries in would just need one extra case added to their formatters.

Both are shit. Sepples is actually readable because it doesnt truncate every keyword into retarded chains of fn -> ' & mut : : -> | | {} fmt :: formatter &mut
But it's still fucking retarded for nesting tuples

Left looks cleaner for me.
However I don't know anything about C++ or Go(?)

Is that Go?

Yeah, auto -> :: n % x ? n % y ? n % z : ::(A) : ::(B) : ::(C) coupled with (X... >->Y; is so much better

Attached: baby-duck.jpg (950x400, 22K)

They're both unreadable garbage.

No that's Rust on the left.

for (int i{ 1 }; i < 31; ++i)

I have never seen more cancerous c++ in my entire life.

auto fib_n(int n) -> std::variant
is a fucking hell of a lot more clear about what it's doing than
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result
And no, it's not because I know sepples. I don't. I loathe it and avoid it because you're right, it is dogshit, but it's certainly not as bad as Rust

Comparing`fib_n` and `fmt` is comparing apples and oranges. Why not compare `nth`?

You’re just using features in ways they weren’t designed for just to appear clever.

>LOOK I CAN STACK THREE ? : OPERATORS TOGETHER THAT MAKES MY CODE SO MUCH CLEVER DOESNT IT?
>I KNOW WHAT TRAILING RETURN TYPES ARE AM I COOL YET?
>PLEASE TELL ME IM SMART

>this mad

Attached: 1518199099507.jpg (480x472, 46K)

You're like an attention whore who posts pictures to get attention. It's such a soyboy, female, bitch attitude that it disgusts me.

Thanks but can you give me 4 more attention points, please?

What other languages have a control-flow operator similar to match in Rust?

Languages with type system decent enough to accommodate pattern matching (i.e. few).

Yeah, managed to find some examples of languages with pattern matching support, thanks.

elixir :^)

H A S K E L L
A
S
K
E
L
L

"print FissBuss instead of FizzBuzz" changes the core of the problem. The core is "when X_i print Y_i, if you didn't print anything print the number". While I see that it is an arguable point, I shall support my claim with reasoning: it's the minimal description of the initial problem. If you separate the "FizzBuzz" case, you are repeating yourself ("Fizz" and "Buzz" are mentioned twice). Adding a special case like "FissBuss" to would require some ugly special cases inside the function. Adding more words to would increase the number of lines exponentially (or perhaps "factorially"?).

holy shit that C++ is unreadable noise

He wrote it like that on purpose to appear clever and impress people who are not familiar with modern C++. Needless to say, C++ doesn't look like that. Pretty much just attention whoring

>std
GAY

yeah I bet so
so the practical differences between this C++ and Rust examples are pattern matching vs ternary operator chain; and named enum vs typed variant. In both cases I would take Rust and the implementation is probably as fast.

The ternary operator use was pretty cool. The rest of the c++ code is completely arcane for me.

Is really funny someone trying to say that you must write an "extensible" FizzBuzz, nothing better than doing a simple task in a bloated way

>auto auto auto auto
>std::variant std::string std::variant std::string
>? ? ? ? ?
Please stop

> Left Side
Random garbage spewn across the screen.
> Right Side
Source Code.

I pick the right side, OP.

why isn't the left side properly indented? why the retarded 2 space offset inside match?

why 'a lifetime and not 'static?

this

>The C++ internet defense force has arrived

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-04-08 07-47-45.png (1552x1098, 185K)