4 ms·

You can still do dependency injection in Rust..? There even exists a create for it: https://github.com/Nercury/di-rs https://github.com/Nercury/di-rs. There's a

by Jonhoo 10y ago

You can still do dependency injection in Rust..? There even exists a create for it: https://github.com/Nercury/di-rs https://github.com/Nercury/di-rs. There's also some further discussion here: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/how-do-you-implement-dependency-injection-in-rust/213 https://users.rust-lang.org/t/how-do-you-implement-dependenc...

Mihies 10y ago
I saw that but it seems really complicated for something that should be straightforward. Or it just looks so? (coming from c#)
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
  If I understand it right, Rust has "zero-cost abstractions" meaning that they don't exist at run-time, just when compiling. e.g. http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/11/traits.html http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/11/traits.html This is the right choice if you want the language to be "a better C" but it means that there is none of the Run-Time Type Information that we are used to in C# (or java). The RTTI plays a small but key role in e.g. how a DI container works: The container works out what parameters a constructor needs at runtime and instantiates those recursively; and in how a mocking framework works: Generating a class on the fly with the right interface declaration. Even XUnit/NUnit work by using RTTI: The testing framework looks for all classes/methods with the right attribute metadata, and runs them. It's easily fast enough for how we use C# and Java, but it's not zero-cost. There are unit testing tools in Rust, but they cannot work the same way - IIRC, there is compiler support for them. So, While Rust as a good chance at being "A better C", don't expect it to do all the things that C# does involving types at runtime. A different goal meant a different language design. There are other interesting things in Rust like the Macro system that might help do similar things, but it's really not going to work like in C#

by Jonhoo 10y ago

Mihies 10y ago

I saw that but it seems really complicated for something that should be straightforward. Or it just looks so? (coming from c#)

SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
If I understand it right, Rust has "zero-cost abstractions" meaning that they don't exist at run-time, just when compiling. e.g. http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/11/traits.html http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/11/traits.html This is the right choice if you want the language to be "a better C" but it means that there is none of the Run-Time Type Information that we are used to in C# (or java). The RTTI plays a small but key role in e.g. how a DI container works: The container works out what parameters a constructor needs at runtime and instantiates those recursively; and in how a mocking framework works: Generating a class on the fly with the right interface declaration. Even XUnit/NUnit work by using RTTI: The testing framework looks for all classes/methods with the right attribute metadata, and runs them. It's easily fast enough for how we use C# and Java, but it's not zero-cost. There are unit testing tools in Rust, but they cannot work the same way - IIRC, there is compiler support for them. So, While Rust as a good chance at being "A better C", don't expect it to do all the things that C# does involving types at runtime. A different goal meant a different language design. There are other interesting things in Rust like the Macro system that might help do similar things, but it's really not going to work like in C#