[fluffybucktsnek]

The inherent overhead of type-erasure is the vtable. Which is funny, because you said you prefer one over the other at the end, when they are basically synonymous. The compiler may choose to devirtualize and specialize, but that isn't guaranteed. If you want this behavior, &dyn does the exact same thing.

Specialization provides more opportunities for optimizations, whereas proper type-erasure (which bars specialization optimizations) doesn't due to lack of type information.

"C macros" are a part of the preprocessor, which runs before the actual C compiler. As such, it lacks all semantical information the C compiler would have at that point, such as function implementions. In practice, macros in C serve two purposes: manipulating C source code (which Rust macros can also do, but with more hygiene); specialization polymorphism, but worse (in which both Rust's generics and C++ templates do better).

[uecker]

The vtable can be removed in all cases where you specialize by monomorphization, so the overhead compared to it is not really inherent.

Type-erasure can be undone by specialization. In contrast, monomorphization specializes the code first, at which point it becomes much more difficult to unify it again.

Sorry, my comment about preference was badly phrased: What I meant is that I prefer to make macros better, than having all the different but partially overlapping techniques in the same language. This is the complexity I am complaining about in both C++ and Rust.

[fluffybucktsnek]

As I stated in my follow up, vtables can only be removed when the type information is still available, which, generally, aligns with specialization, except when dealing with libraries (even with LTO). You say the "vtable can be removed in all cases of monorphization", but that isn't guaranteed and often requires double guessing the compiler to ensure it still knows the type, where as monorphization makes it explicit when the compiler doesn't know the type anymore and that specialization must occur.

The problem with your suggestion about macros is that it misunderstands the reason why different techniques exist. While they may overlap, they have different primary niches: Rust macros provide codegen and inline DSL, Rust generics/C++ templates provide monomorphism, C++ constexpr/Rust const fn evaluate expressions in compile time, etc.

Extending preprocessor macros, aside from requiring integration into the C language proper, would likely create something much more complex and with poor DX. Specially so if it tries to fulfill all niches, as each of them often operate at different abstraction levels, with different ergonomic requirements that are often at odds with each other.

[fluffybucktsnek]

I just noticed you said "The compiler can always specialize". That's indisputably false. That only happens if the compiler has enough information to infer the concrete type at the call point. Conditionals, collections, or anything that may throw doubt about original type info and their function implementations can (and normally will) disable specialization.

[uecker]

It can always specialize where you could do monomorphization.

[fluffybucktsnek]

Not necessarily. In pure theory, yes. But in pure theory, monomorphized code can be deduplicated too.

Monomorphization often forces types information to flow, whereas type-erasure considers that a bonus. As such, a compiler may accidentally introduce opaque boundaries that hide type information. Even in cases where this is the programmer's fault and the type info is truly lost, in monomorphisation, that becomes an explicit error, while, for devirtualization, since it's just an optimization, the call is silently revirtualized (until someone notices it while profiling/decompiling). One has explicit intent, the other doesn't.

[uecker]

The point is much easier to propagate information (and not accidentally lose it) than to deduplicate after specialiation, so I do not agree that this is only of theoretical relevance.

I agree that monomorphization has explicit rules that force specialization, I do not think this is an advantage at all because it is too rigid and one can introduce explicitness at the language level also for devirtualization where this is needed. In this sense, monomorphization is premature optimization which limits what can be expressed at the language level and makes the job of the optimizer much harder (and practically impossible to undo the damage completely).

[fluffybucktsnek]

You seem to be underestimating how easy it is to lose type information. Creating a array of type-erased is already enough to cause confusion, even if the surrounding code is enough to prove the array only has one type. If we are to assume perfect deductive ability for type-erasure, why not for monomorphism as well?

Monomorphization isn't premature optimizations either. It and type-erasure are semantically different. For instance, only monorphization can enable inlining of data structures (as devirtualizating an array of fat pointers involves dealing with ownership concerns, among other things). You either have to type-erase the array itself or box all the items, none of which are very ergonomic for a system-level programming. Also, in terms of performance, monomorphization generally makes the compiler's job easier overall in comparison to type-erasure (specially in Rust where types also encode lifetime), so I don't see the damage unless you are dealing with an extremely size-constrained environment or dealing with instruction cache misses (which is an indication of poor abstractions).

Finally, as stated elsewhere, it's trivial to implement any type-erasure polymorphism in a monomorphic system (save for very specific exceptions, related to hardware), but the reverse is not true. To do so reliably will require assistance of an external codegen tool, like the C macros, generally recreating monomorphism, but worse, as the compiler doesn't actually know the polymorphic code is related, making deduplication even harder.

[uecker]

I don't see why it would easy to lose type information in circumstances where you can do monomorphization. Note that I do not assume "perfect deductive ability". The practical observation is simply that it is far more effort to deduplicate than to clone.