Hacker News Reader

AFAIK, no one has even meant "zero cost" to mean "zero compile-time cost".

Not with that very term, but it seems that an important criteria for the Oberon compiler was that any optimization should not make compilation of the compiler slower.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90....

And yet it is called zero cost. Not "zero cost along one particular dimension that we won't name and only sometimes matters."

We took it from C++ which has a long history with the term; take it up with Bjarne.

Sure he could. And he could take it up with anyone who copies it on a greenfields project too, right? It's a crap name. So what, computing is full of them, assembly language is full of them, C is full of them, C++ is full of them. Sometimes we make a break and don't use one and invent something better. Sometimes...

mov [memory], %register memove(dst, src, size); dst = std::move(src);

eg RAII, SFINAE these are not great names to be copied, I'd be surprised if rust did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com