|
|
|
|
|
|
by josephg
165 days ago
|
|
|
I love rust, but C does make it a lot easier to make certain kinds of container types. Eg, intrusive lists are trivial in C but very awkward in rust. Even if you use unsafe, rust’s noalias requirement can make a lot of code much harder to implement correctly. I’ve concluded for myself (after a writing a lot of code and a lot of soul searching) that the best way to implement certain data structures is quite different in rust from how you would do the same thing in C. I don’t think this is a bad thing - they’re different languages. Of course the best way to solve a problem in languages X and Y are different. And safe abstractions mean this stuff usually only matters if you’re implementing new, complex collection types. Like an ECS, b-tree, or Fenwick tree. Most code can just use the standard collection types. (Vec, HashMap, etc). And then you don’t have to think about any of this. |
|
|
Ok. But making it easier or harder isn't the same as making it impossible.
To quote GP:
> 2) I believe the problem was related to the fact that Rust can't implement a doubly-linked list in safe code.
Rust can implement doubly linked list in safe code. It can. It wraps the unsafe parts in an abstract manner.