Conversation

Maggie

visting SFO

@Mappletons

Mar 10, 2020

Rust

@rustlang

keeps winning the middle-school-popularity contest of "most loved" on Stack Overflow If you're still thinking 'WTF is Rust?'... I made some notes for you Once you're caught up, check out

@PascalPrecht

's new Rust course on

@eggheadio

- egghead.io/courses/write-

209

727

@atehrosius

Mar 10, 2020

This is beautiful, but I was wondering. Isn’t the statement on the 4 image supposed to read “assigning Lebron to Shaq” and not Shaq to Lebron? Or do they mean the same thing ?

Replying to

In my head 'shaq to lebron' sounds like the logical way to phrase it. It's a shortened version of 'we assign (the variable) shaq to (the value of) lebron' If it were 'lebron to shaq,' we would mean 'assign the variable lebron, to the value of shaq' (eg. let lebron = shaq). No?

11:19 PM · Mar 10, 2020TweetDeck

Replying to

Not sure either is guaranteed to be clear phrasing, but I would probably flip it and treat it as: 'assign the value of lebron to the variable shaq'. Since the value is assigned to the variable. Could also do it the other way without the 'to' maybe?

Got this phrasing fixed in the final version 👌 Thanks so much

for helping! Love having Twitter as a hive-mind correction tool 😁

Replying to

In general, a value is assigned to a variable.

Replying to

Great illustrations Maggie 👌👌 Also for that assigning part, someone taught me in my CS classes, value on the right is assigned to the left. I always remember it that way 😅. So if the expression is Shaq = LeBron, It says- LeBron is assigned to Shaq.

Replying to

'assign', reminds me COBOL 😵. Didn't fell in love after the course. Good old c++ seems good enough