4 ms·
Fundamentally Rust just doesn't define things well enough to be able to answer the "this is what it compiles to" issue. There's some things like `Option<&T>` w
by Gankro 11y ago
Fundamentally Rust just doesn't define things well enough to be able to answer the "this is what it compiles to" issue.
There's some things like `Option<&T>` which we guarantee but really it's a lot of "man, if the compiler was smart enough...". Even then, a stray annotation can wall LLVM and kill any chances of perf (e.g. if the function is not a candidate for cross-crate inlining).
- DominikD 11y agoThe "doesn't define things well enough" thing bothers me a little bit. I actually care in my real job what happens after compilation and why. Not being able to guesstimate what happens in machine by looking at source is no deal breaker for what I want to use it for but I'd imagine this to be an issue for stuff like OS/driver/firmware development. But I don't think this is the most important thing I want to know. What I want Rust to be is the opinionated low cost, higher level language. "Do things this way, dummy!" is what I need the most (at this point of my familiarity with the language at least).
- DominikD 11y agoOh and on an a semi related note - I get sad every time I find an interesting looking link just to end up with 404 on the other side. This - for whatever reason - happens far too often with Rust related resources. Trying to get to "The Advanced Rust Programming Language Book Draft" - no dice. Page 404s, so does repo. Lifetime of links does matter, guys. ;(
- dbaupp 11y agoThat book is now https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nomicon/ https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nomicon/ . It was published at .../adv-book/ for approximately 1 day, but then was quickly moved.