←back to thread

Matt Godbolt sold me on Rust by showing me C++

(www.collabora.com)
611 points LorenDB | 4 comments | 06 May 25 17:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
dvratil ◴[06 May 25 18:20 UTC] No.43908097[source]▶
The one thing that sold me on Rust (going from C++) was that there is a single way errors are propagated: the Result type. No need to bother with exceptions, functions returning bool, functions returning 0 on success, functions returning 0 on error, functions returning -1 on error, functions returning negative errno on error, functions taking optional pointer to bool to indicate error (optionally), functions taking reference to std::error_code to set an error (and having an overload with the same name that throws an exception on error if you forget to pass the std::error_code)...I understand there's 30 years of history, but it still is annoying, that even the standard library is not consistent (or striving for consistency).

Then you top it on with `?` shortcut and the functional interface of Result and suddenly error handling becomes fun and easy to deal with, rather than just "return false" with a "TODO: figure out error handling".

replies(24): >>43908133 #>>43908158 #>>43908212 #>>43908219 #>>43908294 #>>43908381 #>>43908419 #>>43908540 #>>43908623 #>>43908682 #>>43908981 #>>43909007 #>>43909117 #>>43909521 #>>43910388 #>>43912855 #>>43912904 #>>43913484 #>>43913794 #>>43914062 #>>43914514 #>>43917029 #>>43922951 #>>43924618 #
zozbot234 ◴[06 May 25 18:48 UTC] No.43908381[source]▶
> The one thing that sold me on Rust (going from C++) was that there is a single way errors are propagated: the Result type. No need to bother with exceptions

This isn't really true since Rust has panics. It would be nice to have out-of-the-box support for a "no panics" subset of Rust, which would also make it easier to properly support linear (no auto-drop) types.

replies(6): >>43908410 #>>43908496 #>>43908674 #>>43908939 #>>43910721 #>>43914882 #
alexeldeib ◴[06 May 25 18:51 UTC] No.43908410[source]▶
that's kind of a thing with https://docs.rs/no-panic/latest/no_panic/ or no std and custom panic handlers.

not sure what the latest is in the space, if I recall there are some subtleties

replies(1): >>43908453 #
zozbot234 ◴[06 May 25 18:54 UTC] No.43908453[source]▶
That's a neat hack, but it would be a lot nicer to have explicit support as part of the language.
replies(2): >>43909043 #>>43909072 #
1. kbolino ◴[06 May 25 20:04 UTC] No.43909072{4}[source]▶
That's going to be difficult because the language itself requires panic support to properly implement indexing, slicing, and integer division. There are checked methods that can be used instead, but to truly eliminate panics, the ordinary operators would have to be banned when used with non-const arguments, and this restriction would have to propagate to all dependencies as well.
replies(2): >>43910599 #>>43914390 #
2. josephg ◴[06 May 25 23:08 UTC] No.43910599[source]▶
Yes that’s right. The feature really wants compiler support for that reason. The simplest version wouldn’t be too hard to implement. Every function just exports a flag on whether or not it (or any callees) can panic. Then we have a nopanic keyword which emits a compiler error if the function (or any callee) panics.

It would be annoying to use - as you say, you couldn’t even add regular numbers together or index into an array in nopanic code. But there are ways to work around it (like the wrapping types).

One problem is that implicit nopanic would add a new way to break semver compatibility in APIs. Eg, imagine a public api that just happens to not be able to panic. If the code is changed subtly, it could easily start panicing again. That could break callers, so it has to be a major version bump. You’d probably have to require explicit nopanic at api boundaries. (Else assume all public functions from other crates can panic). And because of that, public APIs like std would need to be plastered with nopanic markers everywhere. It’s also not clear how that works through trait impls.

3. j-krieger ◴[07 May 25 11:36 UTC] No.43914390[source]▶
Yeah, this is how it works with no_std.
replies(1): >>43916693 #
4. kbolino ◴[07 May 25 15:07 UTC] No.43916693[source]▶
No? https://godbolt.org/z/jEc36vP3P

As far as I can tell, no_std doesn't change anything with regard to either the usability of panicking operators like integer division, slice indexing, etc. (they're still usable) nor on whether they panic on invalid input (they still do).