Checking correctness of the rust->llvm compiler, obviously :P
I tried to think of an alternate justification, but couldn't come up with a non-awkward way of saying it, so just redacted that part entirely. I'll say here, though, a few reasons I think avoiding malloc/GC is…
I wondered how long it would take for somebody to call me out for that. It seemed like a sketchy claim when I wrote it (it wouldn't be too complicated to make the @-heap lock-free in rust, for starters), but in…
Short answer is "all of it"[1]. 'match' statements in rust also exhaustive. I believe ADTs are used and checked exactly the same way as in ocaml (I've used SML and Haskell and they are the same as there). [1] not to say…
My mistake. I meant to write "can SOMETIMES be entirely on the stack" -- fixed that just now. Functions indeed cannot return closures without heap-allocating them. (It might be possible in specific obscure cases, but…
Checking correctness of the rust->llvm compiler, obviously :P
I tried to think of an alternate justification, but couldn't come up with a non-awkward way of saying it, so just redacted that part entirely. I'll say here, though, a few reasons I think avoiding malloc/GC is…
I wondered how long it would take for somebody to call me out for that. It seemed like a sketchy claim when I wrote it (it wouldn't be too complicated to make the @-heap lock-free in rust, for starters), but in…
Short answer is "all of it"[1]. 'match' statements in rust also exhaustive. I believe ADTs are used and checked exactly the same way as in ocaml (I've used SML and Haskell and they are the same as there). [1] not to say…
My mistake. I meant to write "can SOMETIMES be entirely on the stack" -- fixed that just now. Functions indeed cannot return closures without heap-allocating them. (It might be possible in specific obscure cases, but…