[nyanpasu64]

From my understanding, compile-time dependent types (which is all that's needed to mimic statically dispatched generics) are easy, and C++ templates support them (I haven't tried Rust const generics but I hear they're quite limited). Runtime dependent types are much less common, and (given my limited understanding of dependent types) I could describe trait objects (&dyn Trait) as a dependent pair (ptr, Trait-shaped vtable containing *fn taking ptr's type) (though rustc hard-codes support for trait objects, and its job is easier since it never lets ptr change runtime type while its target is used for a &dyn Trait).

[tialaramex]

Rust's const generics today are limited to the built-in integral types (so, char, bool, and the various sizes of signed or unsigned integer) and the constant must actually be an obvious constant, so e.g. a literal, or something you could assign to a const in Rust. So yes that's much less flexible than C++.

Some of the flexibility in C++ here is desirable, much of it is either wanking or outright dangerous. C++ will allow a float generic for example, which is obviously a footgun because good luck explaining why Thing<NaN> and Thing<NaN> are different types...

Rust expects to sooner or later ship Const generics for user-defined types, but to exclude the nonsense of "float generic" the likely rule goes like this: Your const parameter type must derive PartialEq and Eq. It won't be enough to implement them yourself as your implementation might be nonsense (e.g. misfortunate::Maxwell implements Eq but no Maxwell is equal to anything, including itself) you'll need to use the derive macro which promises the compiler these things actually have working equivalence so that Thing<A> and Thing<B> are the same type if A and B are equivalent.

[logicchains]

>Some of the flexibility in C++ here is desirable, much of it is either wanking or outright dangerous. C++ will allow a float generic for example, which is obviously a footgun because good luck explaining why Thing<NaN> and Thing<NaN> are different types...

It's not nonsense, there are legitimate use-cases for floating point template params. A classic example is something like generateInlinedVersionOfFunction<someInt, someFloat>() that generates a class or function with some particular values inlined for efficiency. Using nan as a template parameter is stupid, but it's not especially more dangerous than using nan in general, since any issues specific to its compile-time usage will manifest at compile time, not runtime.

It does nobody any favours to just dismiss advanced features Rust doesn't support as dangerous and unnecessary just because most Rust programmers haven't come across a use-case.

[zozbot234]

> It does nobody any favours to just dismiss advanced features Rust doesn't support as dangerous and unnecessary just because most Rust programmers haven't come across a use-case.

I think requiring decidable equality for const generics is a fine approach for a limited MVP like what Rust is going with at present. Sure there are more general settings but they would need dependent types and the user would have to write proofs of type equality/apartness anytime the issue came up in a compile. Seems like a bit of a non-starter for now, even though it's effectively what enables non-trivial logical features like homotopy types.

[tialaramex]

> A classic example is something like generateInlinedVersionOfFunction<someInt, someFloat>() that generates a class or function with some particular values inlined for efficiency.

This smells very bad. Seems like a better choice is a macro, and I understand that in C++ the macros are awful and worth avoiding, but Rust has decent declarative macros for this type of work.

Do you have some real world examples?

[Asooka]

Can't you do that in Rust with a macro?

[Asooka]

You can always just convert your float to a bit-equivalent int and back for the type param if you really want it. I have never seen floats used for template parameters in the wild, other than party tricks like wrapping a float in a struct with an "epsilon" parameter used for the operator<. Which is all kinds of wrong.

[zozbot234]

AIUI, practical dependent types are always evaluated at compile time, but the difference with something like C++ generics is that the types can include references to program bindings that relate to runtime values. This means that dependent types can express proofs evaluated at compile time about the runtime properties of a program.