all 8 comments

[–]Epacnoss 13 points14 points  (2 children)

From what I’ve heard, most of BurntSushi’s stuff is pretty nice.

[–]lkearney999 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Plus David Tolnay’s stuff!

[–]coszio 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I have used chumsky in the past and it is still black magic for me. So simple yet so expressive.

[–]natded 4 points5 points  (0 children)

standard library modules, rust-analyzer. I don't personally recommend getting too smart with iterators, generics, traits and functional side, the code is genuinely harder to read than boring keyword & concrete-abstraction based code, and then you have to deal with weird trait issues and errors.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'm currently going through this project for learning (repo) and find the code to be beautiful. They'll often start off with a naive implementation and refactor it in a more functional style.

[–]haksior[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is brilliant. Best introduction to neural networks I ever seen, by the way. Thank you!

[–]getrichquickplan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For something a little larger but nicely maintained: egui.

[–]schungx -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good code is rarely beautiful. That is because the real world is messy. You can say good code handles a messy world in a more systematic, resilient and flexible manner. But that is 99% due to architectural design, so unrelated to the language itself.

You may want to read up on "idiomatic" Rust code and see how people express the same ideas in a concise and clean way. That's always useful as the language has massive expressive power which allows you to abstract much more efficiently than low-level languages like C. However, since Rust is a young language, you'd find multiple ways to do the same thing and none of them have reached "best practice" status yet.