4 ms·

Yes, that's correct. I just want to be clear that it's not like destructors in rust are unreliable in the way that finalizers are in Java.

• klodolph 5y ago
  To be clear, I definitely wasn't talking about that. Since you can't use the type system to guarantee that an object is destroyed, there are a few things in Rust that are a major pain to get working. Like passing a reference to a short-lived thread.
  • staticassertion 5y ago
    It's not that hard in my experience. You generally do it by using a guarded scope where the user provides a callback and doesn't manage the resource (like a thread) themselves.
    • klodolph 5y ago
      Sure, if that works for you, it's easy. Stuff like crossbeam::scope only solves a subset of the problem, though. When that solution doesn't work for you, it's a pain. Using a scope is, strictly speaking, less powerful and more annoying to work with than a more general system of linear types. It's like Go's defer, or C#'s using/IDisposable... they work in certain scenarios, but there's a percentage of the time where a lexical scope or function scope doesn't match the lifetime of your object, or can't match the lifetime of your object.
      • staticassertion 5y ago
        Yep, agreed.