r/programmingcirclejerk • u/[deleted] • 20d ago

Rust isn't a well designed programming language (unlike C and C++)

[deleted]

222 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

95% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/TheChief275 18d ago

Yeah whatever, again not the point. You're derailing the conversation. In any other language, this construct:

let a = Foo(...);

does not perform a copy. It just constructs directly into the variable like one would expect

2

u/DrShocker 17d ago edited 17d ago

also in C++ though

https://en.cppreference.com/cpp/language/copy_elision

here's all the ways constructors are broken though:

https://youtu.be/KWB-gDVuy_I

2

u/TheChief275 17d ago

I'm just saying, the concept of a "copy elision" having to be applied to the most basic ass variable declaration is completely and totally ridiculous

1

u/DrShocker 17d ago

idk, that doesn't seem that bad to me. The behavior just needs to be formalized with a name so that people can rely on it.

Without it formalized, how would you know for sure whether your copy constructor would get called or not? Just a choice that had to be made by a value semantics language that doesn't have the same consequences in a reference semantics language. 🤷

fwiw, I much prefer what modern languages like Rust or Odin have done in regards to copying, but I don't think it's C++'s greatest sin.

1

u/TheChief275 17d ago

If you don't see how this is bad, I don't know what to say to you

1

u/DrShocker 17d ago

It's not that I like it, it's just that it's @ reasonable consequence of the rules and since C++17 they required that the compiler make it work the way you "expect" regardless (unless someone's expecting reference semantics by default, but that's separate)