4 ms·
That is slowly being addressed, but meanwhile it’s likely you have a reliable upper bound on how much heap your service needs, so it’s a much smaller worry. The
by wrs 11mo ago
That is slowly being addressed, but meanwhile it’s likely you have a reliable upper bound on how much heap your service needs, so it’s a much smaller worry. There are also techniques like up-front or static allocation if you want to make more certain.
- NewJazz 11mo agoYep and this postmortem details how their proxy modules use static allocation.
- echelon 11mo agoI'm far more worried about some dependency calling unwrap() or expect() now. https://github.com/search?q=unwrap%28%29+language%3ARust&type=code https://github.com/search?q=unwrap%28%29+language%3ARust&typ... This is ridiculous. We're probably going to start seeing more of these. This was just the first, big highly visible instance. We should have a name for this similar to "my code just NPE'd". I suggest "unwrapped", as in, "My Rust app just unwrapped a present." I think we should start advocating for the deprecation and eventual removal of the unwrap/expect family of methods. There's no reason engineers shouldn't be handling Options and Results gracefully, either passing the state to the caller or turning to a success or fail path. Not doing this is just laziness.