You're interpreting my example more literally than I intended. :-) What does it say about the language, when parody is indistinguishable from poorly written code?
The actual code we were working on involved functions returning closures with mutable captures, so the borrow checker was especially persnickety.
To be blunt, the code you copied out as example is crap. I don't know what you expect how it's being interpreted. It says more about the programmer than the language.
> functions returning closures with mutable captures
That sounds like another bad design, but to each his own.
My apologies if I hit a nerve. I'm just trying to have fun chatting about the foibles of contemporary software development with fellow nerds on HN. I expected something like urthor's post, where they seemed to appreciate the levity of my comment, and responded with some interesting insights. I also appreciated the follow up comment raising a serious concern about the prevalence of cloning and resulting confusion in realistic codebases.
