Here's my litmus test: read the source aloud. Over the phone to a person who doesn't see your screen, if needed. Did you have an obvious, understandable, and simple pronunciation for everything, that wasn't just reading ASCII characters one by one?
Now pretend the other person is a smart and experienced programmer, but has never heard of Rust. How would they write down what you just told them, without any idea of Rust's syntax? That's the non-ugly version of Rust.
Limiting examples to a subset of Rust syntax will produce more readable answers, sure. You have no lifetimes and no borrows, and very limited generics.
The information density of the "human syntax" Rust syntax both remain linear in size, but with a significant different N.
function max
with
a lifetime a,
a lifetime b,
and type parameter T
with
argument a of a reference to type T that lives as long as lifetime a
argument b of a reference to type T that lives as long as lifetime b
and returns a value of type parameter T
where T implements trait PartialEq
#[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]
impl<'a, T, A: Allocator> IntoIterator for &'a Vec<T, A> {
type Item = &'a T;
type IntoIter = slice::Iter<'a, T>;
fn into_iter(self) -> Self::IntoIter {
self.iter()
}
}
An implementation of trait IntoIterator
(that has been stable since Rust 1.0.0)
with a lifetime a
a type parameter T
a type parameter A which implements the trait Allocator
for a borrow for the duration of lifetime a of type Vec with type parameters T and A
it has an associated type Item, which is a borrow for the duration of lifetime a of type T
it has an associated type IntoIter, which is type Iter from module slice with parameters lifetime a and type T
it has a method into_iter
that consumes the receiver
and returns associated type IntoIter
the methods body
calls method iter on the receiver
and returns its resulting value
I'm not arguing that complex things will somehow become non-complex.
However, none of the human syntax of Rust includes things like :: or '. To a first approximation[1], those are the parts that people can experience as "ugly", and they are not present in the human syntax. This is what people mean when they say "sigil heavy" or "punctuation based" syntax -- things that are generally are not read out as such. This is the space where you can make arguments about beauty.
[1]: Only roughly so because your chosen human syntax still encodes some Rust syntax decisions like predeclaring generic lifetimes and types, and using "where" instead of an inline clause. Those parts of syntax can also be shuffled around for subjective values of "not ugly".
Now pretend the other person is a smart and experienced programmer, but has never heard of Rust. How would they write down what you just told them, without any idea of Rust's syntax? That's the non-ugly version of Rust.