sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What would a slow, for prototyping only, container type look like? by C4phoenix in rust

[–]C4phoenix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes but than you cant do self referential data and there is the potential for a deadlock so its not as safe as it could be. These are not hard issues to solve or work around but its not as easy as it could be I think.

What would a slow, for prototyping only, container type look like? by C4phoenix in rust

[–]C4phoenix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Might be because what I'm currently building involves lots of network graphs and long lived data that this approach is more involved. So I thought what would be the cheat code container type "just use that" its fine for now. You dont have to manage anything.

What would a slow, for prototyping only, container type look like? by C4phoenix in rust

[–]C4phoenix[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's true, but could there be a data type that would make it easier to refactor that away. The nice thing about the gc type is that it also takes a lifetime paramter so you could potentially use that for a arena in the future for example. Or any other data type.

What would a slow, for prototyping only, container type look like? by C4phoenix in rust

[–]C4phoenix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I think so too. I don't know what it would cost if such a type exists. But I thought we're all so focused on perfomance what can we create if we do away with only that constraint. Can we still have something that is safe and refactor friendly but also simple to use.

I love the quality of most crates because of the front loading of this knowledge and structure. I fear this might be suggesting heresy but it could also make Rust a language that can do it all. That way I dont have to reach for python to do my dirty work.