Viewing profile — afdbcreid

I believe the MVP was chosen specifically to have the same features as JavaScript, so that browser engines can implement it without major changes. So not really an odd target.

This is far from trivial. Consider the WasmGC proposal, which had a somewhat similar goal. Then C# came and said "we can't use it, we have different needs". So did Go.

Maybe we should automatically exclude indexing, but it's telling that current crates like no-panic do not to that (instead they check if the compiler optimizes out the panic, which…

The question (one question, at least) is what to do with unwinding. If we consider every function to be able to unwind, that means you basically need to have a lot of boilerplate, …

In my open source work I believe this is the same. I don't have numbers, but I'm sure the vast majority of my time isn't spent writing code. Of course, it depends on how you define…

The problem with the trivial implementation is that it's barely useful. You cannot use indexing, for example. Not to mention it's still not easy: to have any usefulness, there will…

Then this is, unfortunately, entirely wrong. Here's an example causing a segfault when there is a bound checks that the compiler omits: https://godbolt.org/z/8f6rv4dja The example …

One of the main reasons Rust needs this capability is because C++ has it, and Rust wants to interop with it. It's not that better model (enabling it additionally can bring benefits…

The more accurate definition of `!Forget`, similar to `Pin `, is not "can be leaked" but "if the underlying storage is reused, the destructor is guaranteed to run". This enables al…

But also come with a plausible implementation strategy, that from what I know is not currently known for no-panic.

Like others said, Pin is incompatible with these semantics. Some people argue, though, that we need both (basically because pinned types can be moved before being pinned).

If anything, pin ergonomics is at greater risk. People still discuss if we need both, but if we don't, then we go for this goal and not pin ergonomics, as it's more general. It (th…

Then perhaps people need to pay to get their paper reviewed?

The government can just arrest you and lock you out of all sites. It's not like they cannot do it today.

I'm well aware. I don't know a moving GC crate for Rust, but I do know that building a safe moving GC crate for Rust is possible, using the same principles as existing GC crates. I…

No, you really can. You can use GC crates and the performance will be like Java, or you can use Rc and the performance will be like Swift. The only reason Rust people use unsafe fo…

That is of course true, but if anything that just proves more what I said. Also that too is part of the "common wisdom" (that as I said, is not always true).

See https://kobzol.github.io/rust/rustc/2024/03/15/rustc-what-ta... , which does an extensive analysis on that.

That's only part of the issue. First, declarative macros are of course pure. Most procedural macros are pure too, although there are exceptions (an infamous case is sqlx). And whil…

That is common wisdom but reality is more complicated. It's true in some projects, but not all.

This post is really interesting. As a member of the rust-analyzer team, I cannot avoid comparing it to the situation in Rust land. Rust famously has not less (or even more) sophist…

That's just false. You can use `Arc` or even one of the safe GC crates available, and get semantics like Java with no `unsafe`.

`raw` is a contextual keyword.

> > Like why do I need to use `addr_of_mut!`? > As of Rust 1.82.0 [0] you no longer need to! That's true but misleading. I'm pretty sure the question was why a normal reference is …