Is ownership in Rust just std::move in C++?
Is ownership in Rust just std::move in C++?
Jacob Perry
Noah Myers
Nah, it is just Rust fans getting owned.
Joshua Phillips
No. Every single heap allocated object in Rust is move by default, but ownership ensures that there is only one owner of a resource. This does not exist in C++.
Chase Miller
You got things mixed up, user. Nobody here knows how to code. It's all a LARP.
And the ones that know how to code (me) don't use current toy languages like Rust, V or Zig.
Cameron Wright
>mfw all i do is C and Python
Mason Carter
Why participate in a thread about programming if you don't actually know programming?
Aaron Evans
so its std::move except enforced?
Lucas Sanchez
Yes, but Rust ownership is stricter than that.
Elijah Green
sounds like C++ can implement this by adding compiler flags to making copy constructors illegal
Adrian Ross
Impossible without breaking backwards compatibility.
Cooper Walker
Ownership is actually a bad thing.
It stops "race conditions" - however data races are _not_ a bug; won't fix
Yes they correlate with memory errors, such as use after free, but it is an inelegant solution. Furthermore, by effectively locking resources (compare to: GIL) it isn't really a "zero cost" abstraction, even if you try to frontload the work to the compiler.
Levi Garcia
>(compare to: GIL)
This has nothing to do with GIL. Please suggest a better option to prevent human errors.
Austin Sanders
Unironically GC
Just because you wrap your language in a bunch of buzzwords doesn't mean you get to violate the CAP theorem (which is ultimately what's being attempted with the ownership model)
You pick a GC'd lang like Go for "safe" concurrent code, and use a lang like C as your "unsafe" blocks.
Kayden Long
> Any Forums: Rust is full of mindless zealots!
> Also Any Forums:
Lincoln Mitchell
Garbage collection comes with big performance issues. Which is why discord replaced their Go projects with Rust.
Josiah Taylor
Assembly in the top 10...
Carson Gutierrez
>C more popular than JavaScript
lmao imagine being so far out of touch with the reality
Jeremiah Moore
c/c+ chad reporting in
Parker Clark
ownership exists in sepples too that's what raii and smart pointers are for
Tyler Cruz
Compiler flags not even necessary, just assign delete to the copy ctor. I do this for all my classes as a matter of good hygiene
Jason Perez
Apparently, an even better way to do this is to inherit from a simple base class with deleted copy constructors + assignment operators. boost::noncopyable provides just such a base class. I do not believe there is a compiler flag to do the same.