Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrismorgan | Hacker News Reader

The stuff about boxing, Rc and Gc is simply wrong. For example:

`box foo` is Box<T>, the old ~T, nothing to do with Gc or Rc.

Gc is not at all clever and does not do cycle collection.

There are quite a number of other wrong or slightly wrong things about Rust, and a total ignoring of many Rust conventions.

View on HN

The "stuff about boxing" has been discussed on the reddit thread, and I will have it fixed by tomorrow. Thanks for highlighting.

As to "Gc not being clever", the code is clear that it is intended to be clever in the long run, so the essence of the message could stay. Maybe the wording could be made more precise, thanks again for highlighting.

As to the "number of other wrong or slightly wrong things", I would be more than happy to fix the text if you have concrete remarks.

I'd like to know what is exactly wrong, I tried to look for the reddit thread, assuming it would've been this one:

http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/2al19j/rust_for_functi...

but there're no comments as of now

EDIT: found it

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2akz51/rust_for...

Also, unless things have changed significantly in the past year or so (since I've last really used Rust), there are significant differences between Rust traits and Haskell type classes. You can have collections of heterogeneous types that all share the same trait, which is not true with type classes. Most descriptions I've seen say that they are more of a hybrid of Java interfaces and Haskell type classes.

You can have the same thing in Haskell using existential types.

I think the point is that traits are different from typeclasses

Not really, since the equivalent formulations in Rust are also existentials, just slightly massaged syntax-wise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com