This function signature is a work of art: https://docs.rs/effing-mad/0.1.0/effing_mad/fn.transform.htm...
99.9% of the time you're never going to touch voodoo like this. Unless you choose that path.
That and, I just wrap everything "hard" in some combination of lazy_static / Arc+Mutex.
When data flows downwards it's often simple to have the top layer own and then pass down references.
But if you start running into lots of issues doing that it's probably a fundamental issue with your architecture. So you need to either rethink it or give up and try a different kind of approach. Both are valid, but I think people who try to muddle through without either dramatic option are the ones who end up very frustrated with Rust.
Reading your comment I had two simultaneous thoughts....
1. <squinting appreciatively> Clever, cool way to think of it... ...and if you need information back at the top level, send it back via a Result....
2. <brows raised in horror, shuddering in React> State management hell!
:->
It'd be neat if the language had a "beginner mode" flag where the compiler could recommend simple things like abuse of the heap. All you need is a day or two with it, then you can take off the training wheels.
Write one to throw away. Learning is messy and hands-on, not rote and academic.
C is a simple language, but it's still difficult for beginners to understand systems software because it's complex. Adding something like this were people are inventing complexity in the language itself out of boredom is a recipe for disaster and is much worse than the terrible things than can happen in C.
Please just learn to write simple code and solve hard problems, rather than writing complex code to solve contrived problems.
I'm sure every language has examples of code where it was written to be crazy on purpose, This is one of those.
Like when you write a raytracer in CMake, or Meson build, or C++ templates. Etc etc. Or when you compile your program to only mov instructions, because mov instructions are turing complete (should this be a reason we shouldn't use x86?). I'm sure there are plenty more examples.
Nobody is suggesting you actually use this stuff. Therefore it seems a bit silly to point at it and say 'don't use this language because people do silly things for fun in it!!!!11!!1'
Not really. This is a fun project to show what an effects system would look like. The consequences of this are pretty much strictly positive.
> and is much worse than the terrible things than can happen in C.
No. "Ugly code no one will use but that demonstrates a concept" is definitely not worse than "attacker has full control over the computer".
You can write simple or complex code in any language.
The Obfuscated C contests exist so I really don't see what points you think you're making.
Some people have fun pushing their tools to their limits. That doesn't mean they do the same thing in production code.