| ▲ | jdw64 8 hours ago |
| Sorry, should clarify. .clone() itself isn't inherently unidiomatic when used . My issue is specifically with how the AI uses it. In AI code, .clone() is almost always used as a brute-force escape hatch |
|
| ▲ | izietto 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Just like for me as an amateur Rust enjoyer then |
|
| ▲ | andai 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| So .clone() significantly reduces the mental overhead of using rust with a small performance impact? I'm intrigued :) Maybe it's harder to reason about the lifetime semantics while also writing code, and works better as a second phase (the de-cloning). |
| |
| ▲ | _verandaguy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > So .clone() significantly reduces the mental overhead of using rust with a small performance impact? I'm intrigued :)
No, the performance impact will depend on `impl Clone` for the underlying type, the hotness of the code path, and how sensitive to those two variables your code's domain is. It may be extremely expensive. > Maybe it's harder to reason about the lifetime semantics while also writing code, and works better as a second phase (the de-cloning).
There are cases where assuming `clone` is possible allows for significant architectural and API simplifications at the expense of performance. In those cases, de-cloning will be involved and may produce significant changes. |
|
