5 ms·
I think some of the snideness is probably due to different senses of what amount of unsafe is actually needed. There’s so much premature optimization in many ca
by mtsr 3y ago
I think some of the snideness is probably due to different senses of what amount of unsafe is actually needed. There’s so much premature optimization in many cases that wouldn’t even come up if the language were Java, Go or whatever. It’s totally fine to initially accept some known overhead from cloning or Rc if you don’t know yet it it’s going to significantly impact performance.
- josephg 3y agoI think the tricky thing here is that unsafe blocks pit safety and performance against each other at the limit. There’s essentially two languages both called rust: one which prioritises performance over safety. (“Make it safe - but only when safety doesn’t negatively impact performance”) And another which prioritises safety over performance (“Raw pointers and unsafe code should only be used as a last resort”). Cargo stores packages from both sub-communities and we fight over the heart of rust. - And sometimes to our collective detriment, like what happened to actix.