4 ms·
For me, performance is much more critical, and the languages with ownership semantics do not easily allow me to get those performance benefits unless I ignore/b
by gingerBill 6y ago
For me, performance is much more critical, and the languages with ownership semantics do not easily allow me to get those performance benefits unless I ignore/bypass the ownership semantics of the language. It's one of the reasons I started my own language, the Odin programming language.
I wanted the ability to have control over memory layout and memory allocations, and be tied to a specific model of how structure and design my program determined by the programming language itself, especially ideas which have yet to prove themselves as being "good" (by whatever metric).
- ncmncm 6y ago"Odin"? The truth comes out. I confess I am also not very impressed by the idea of organizing a whole language around ownership. But that doesn't make move semantics a problem. It is a problem that Rust doesn't let you code your own move. It is another problem that C++ allows it to fail, or to decay to an ordinary copy.