On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 11:04:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:49:49 UTC, Dgame wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:40:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
However, Rust won't fare well in a head-to-head comparison
either, because of the issues with back-pointers.
Could you explain this?
You often want back-pointers for performance reasons, but Rust
default pointer model isn't as accepting to cycles. So you
either have to change your design or loose the benefits that
the compiler provides, at which point C++ is more convenient,
but it depends on what you try to do.
As far as I remember you can use pointers as you normally do if
you use them in unsafe blocks. Not that I ever tried.
