If your hotspot is spread across thousands and thousands of lines of code, you have made major architectural mistakes.
> On 28 Mar 2014, at 12:49, Tommi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 28 Mar 2014, at 14:27, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 28/03/14 08:25 AM, Tommi wrote: >>>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 05:56, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think that Rust should give you the ability to opt out of safety, but on >>>> a per-operation basis. Having it as a compiler option is too much of a >>>> sledgehammer: often you want some non-performance-critical bounds to be >>>> checked in the name of safety, while you want some bounds checks to be >>>> turned off. >>> >>> One other argument I can give for a "sledgehammer" feature like this is >>> that it can be used as a marketing tool against people who are worried >>> about performance. You can say to those people: "Look, if, at the end of >>> the day, you decide that you'd rather take raw speed over safety, then >>> there's this compiler flag you can use to disable all runtime memory safety >>> checking in your code and get performance on par with C++". >> >> It's called `unsafe`. There's a whole keyword reserved for it. > > From a marketing standpoint, I don't think that the following sounds very > appealing: > "Look, if, at the end of the day, you'd rather choose raw speed over safety, > then you can go over all the hundreds of thousands of lines of code you have > and change everything to their unsafe, unchecked variants". > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
