That's the trade off isn't it. ' is unnecessarily short and doesn't convey any information at all, or worse, the wrong information. There are other comments that point out that ' is valid in identifier, or used to indicate that something is derived from something else.
Some will prefer the short nature of just typing ', where people like me would prefer that you just add a few more characters so it reads more easily.
' itself (!) may not convey information, but it's existence does convey information.
While making it a keyword may help beginners to understand code and wish they could see the meaning directly, because they don't know the meaning of certain symbols yet, people who know the language and productively produce code are more concerned about content rather than syntax.
Content meaning the name of the life time, the name of the types, the name parameters, the structure of the types, the constraints on the types, etc.
Especially for Rust, there is a lot of the things mentioned above, and since the concepts in Rust aren't easy, it's important that these things get as much space as possible from the limited space on the screen, instead of wasting it by self explaining syntax elements, which are trivial to memorize.
Thus { instead of begin_function_body, *; instead of statement_end, ? instead of 'if err != nil then return err' and ' instead of lifetime.
Perhaps a better example would be & referring to AND operations (logical and bitwise), but also being a unary operator for taking the address of a variable.
> Because pretty much any other language has '...' for strings, or at least something to do with text.
The ' aren't used in places where strings occur (strings just don't make sense there anyways), don't take up to much space (i.e. give more space to the name).
I am not a Rust pro, but this has never been an issue for me, same for ! for macro expansions.
not only is it a shitty source of income, it also exposes you to sexism, racism and makes you tolerate shit things, because your income could be at risk standing up for yourself.
Have you ever worked a job where you get tipped? I have. I was both a bartender and a server and my income was far better than both 1) the alternatives for which I was qualified, and 2) what my income would have been on flat, higher wage. If you haven't worked a job like that, it might be worth talking to people who do or have.
I have; I worked in an ice cream stand at a dairy farm. And you're correct, because of the tips we made much more than we would have even if we had had a higher wage.
But to the point of the person you replied to, on the busy days, there would be two of us working. We were free to split labor however we liked. We made far more tips when it was my attractive, female, coworker taking orders and interacting with the customers, and me scooping, than the other way around. People absolutely do tip differently based on their biases regarding the worker they are interacting with.
Yes, there will be some people who are tipped an unusually high amount who will lose out.
But almost any significant policy or social change will have an impact like that. You have to basically give up on fixing anything if you're not willing to impact anyone.
I've never worked full-time since I was 16 but never a job where tipping was the norm (I'm in the US) so maybe I'm missing something obvious but isn't a stable income preferable? And where is the assumption coming from that doing away with tips invariably requires making less money?
That seems like a highly presumptive gamble. And, as referenced elsewhere, it isn't the right argument against pushing for progress in pay equity.
I'll admit up front that I'm simply not going to see eye-to-eye with anyone who thinks a system is acceptable or sustainable that requires subjugation of many for income maximization for a very few. There's FAR too much capital in play for me to feel bad at slightly less comfort for some if it means drastic reduction in suffering for so many.
No, they don't. You're trying a false equivalency between a bribe and gratuity. A bribe happens before the service is provided and the service is contingent upon the bribe. Gratuity is post factum, technically based on the quality of the service provided.
Let's take police officers in México, for México, for example. One needs to pay bribes to get anything done. On the other hand, they have almost zero job protection, have absolutely crappy salaries, most of the time have to buy their own uniforms, their own gas for the police cars, and so forth. And on top of that, they have to contribute to "upwards bribes", so they can keep their jobs.
It might not be identical to the situation of a water at a café, but jeez, does it rhyme with it.
Tipping should be banned. Waitstaff at a restaurant should be considered like any other employee. Tipping someone because they went "above and beyond" should be considered as an insult, because it's literally a bribe, "I'll give you something extra for your trouble".
Alas, it's a bit too idealistic of me to expect that to happen.
Yet? It’s always awkward at the end of the school year when we are asked to prepare gifts for the teachers. Like, how do you do that without it appearing as a bribe/entitlement?
Most of the time it's to get them to actually do their job; shitty pay, bad or nonexistent oversight, corruption (or just "bribes") in higher levels too, conditionally applied rules, etc...
That creates a de-facto auction for their time and service, you (and what you're adding on top) vs. everyone else (and what they are adding on top). There's an unofficial "price list" depending on how quick and thorough you want things to be done.
"Tipping culture" easily slides into "bribing culture" when it becomes an expectation, regardless of what the Supreme Court says about it.
Tip 0 and see what kind of service you get the next time.
I used to work food delivery and naturally the customers ordering takeout at fancy restaurants would always tip 0 to the restaurant even if they tipped me for delivery.
I quickly found myself ignored by all the workers at those restaurants, orders take an hour extra to fill, no one talk to me, etc. eventually I learned to tip out of my own tip because my next service is contingent on the prior tip.
I live in an affluent area and my daughter works in food service. She says the people she knows to be wealthy are generally the worst tippers (often 0%). I have stuck with 15% even though that is below the suggestions on receipts these days and she tells me that's high for the restaurant's average.
Let's be real. You are creating a conflict of interest. If I take "tips" from my customers, my employer would be pissed. The only reason we are considering this to not be corruption is because it's a system foisted on them by management to reduce their costs.
In more egregious instances in food service I saw employees trade goods for tips quid-pro-quo and cut the business entirely out of the transaction.
I work for the government and we are not allowed to accept tips. Even if there is a technical difference between a bribe and a gratuity, it is too easy to misconstrue a tip as a bribe (by either or both parties) and it is too easy to frame a bribe as a tip.
There are plenty of situations where you pay up front and fill in the tip before service is actually rendered. I've had situations where I tip the standard and get bad service (eg missed side orders).
It's irrelevant if you pay people before or after. You can't tip the police after they perform some sort of service. You're still trying to influence them with money.
It should be based on quality of service, or at least on some service being provided, but what has now become the norm is the expectation that you pay a tip (and a hefty percentage one, not just a dollar in the tip jar) just for buying a food item at the counter, with zero service provided.
