Oh and .clone()
post
I thought it was randomly adding Send and Sync traits to function signatures until rustc is happy.
Replace that with golang and now we’re talking
Yeah, popped in the comments to say the same.
I dont know what my damage is with pointers…
Follow up of: "Mmm... should I put lifecycle annotation in these 10 structs or just use and Rc and call it a day?". Rc and Box FTW.
Same for C, & yields a pointer to a value, and * allows you to access the data. (For rust people, a pointer is like a reference with looser type checking)
We have pointers in Rust, too :) see documentation
I think that's the only thing I dislike about rust. Not having to use * to dereference but later having to use is tad confusing. I know it's still clever solution but in this case I prefer c++'s straightforward consistency.
Using ampersand never was problematic for me.
C++ does have the problem that references are not objects, which introduces many subtle issues. For example, you cannot use a type like std::vector, so that templated code will often have to invoke std::remove_reference and so on. Rust opts for a more consistent data model, but then introduces auto-deref (and the Deref trait) to get about the same usability C++ has with references and operator->. Note that C++ will implicitly chain operator-> calls until a plain pointer is reached, whereas Rust will stop dereferencing once a type with a matching method/field is found. Having deep knowledge of both languages, I'm not convinced that C++ features "straightforward consistency" here…
This was me in courses that used C. Keep adding and removing * and & until the IDE was happy and it usually worked.
Ah the good old times with C, when things were much more simple (but unsafe...)
I'm gonna have to borrow this book
So... now the rustc borrow checker is the new video game boss that is nearly impossible to beat for newcomers, right?
Hahaha yes tfw Rust forces you to put your shit in a Rc>>
all 24 comments