nomicon VS too-many-lists

it’s even written by the same person that wrote the Nomicon (the guide to the dark arts of unsafe)

If you want to dive deeper you can always have other options but now there are concrete cases, if you want to do low level thing https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/ while if you want multi thread/concurrency stuff https://marabos.nl/atomics/ . There are many many books so you will have to point yourself to what you want

Nonononono. SeqCst is the most error prone memory order: https://github.com/rust-lang/nomicon/issues/166

Hope this helps. For more details, see the Rustonomicon. I referenced the subtyping chapter here extensively.

Nice video! Glad I could help out. This stuff is hard, and I'm still learning a lot about it myself even years later. The Rustonomicon is a great read if you haven't already.

Have you got a moment to read through the good book , after reading through this perhaps try the Rustonomicon.

That is not what UB means. Undefined Behaviour is behaviour that the compiler is allowed to assume will never happen, and which can consequently cause miscompilations due to optimisation passes gone wrong if it does in fact occur in the source code.

It's true that Rust does not have a written specification that clearly delineates what is and isn't UB in a single place. But:

1. UB is impossible in safe code (modulo bugs in unsafe code)

2. There are resources such as the Rustinomicon (https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/) that provide a detailed guide on what is and isn't allowed in unsafe code.

In practice, it's much easier to avoid UB in Rust than it is in C++.

However, this is a wide topic out of scope for a Reddit comment, so maybe just read the Rustonomicon. It explains everything about data handling in Rust.

The ownership model & borrow checker makes rust a bit of an awkward language in which to write complex data structures like trees and graphs. It can be done - since you can always use raw pointers & unsafe code when you absolutely need to to treat rust like C. But the language fights you, and the community can get a bit moralistic about this sort of thing. The rust nomicon is a fantastic resource for learning the limits of the borrow checker, and where and how to use unsafe code correctly. You will need unsafe less than you think you will, but sometimes you will have no choice.

You seem to have a preset opinion, and I'm not sure you are interested in re-evaluating it. So this is not written to change your mind.

I've developed production code in C, C++, Rust, and several other languages. And while like pretty much everything, there are situations where it's not a good fit, I find that the solutions tend to be the most robust and require the least post release debugging in Rust. That's my personal experience. It's not hard data. And yes occasionally it's annoying to please the compiler, and if there were no trait constraints or borrow rules, those instances would be easier. But way more often in my experience the compiler complained because my initial solution had problems I didn't realize before. So for me, these situations have been about going from building it the way I wanted to -> compiler tells me I didn't consider an edge case -> changing the implementation and or design to account for that edge case. Also using one example, where is Rust is notoriously hard and or un-ergonomic to use, and dismissing the entire language seems premature to me. For those that insist on learning Rust by implementing a linked list there is https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/.

Advent of Code was okay until I encounterd a problem that required a graph, tree or linked list to solve, where I hit a wall. Most coding exercises are similar--those requiring arrays and hashmaps and sets are okay, but complex data structures are a PITA. (There is an online course dedicated to linked lists in Rust but I couldn't grok it either). IMO you should simply skip problems that you can't solve with your current knowledge level and move on.

I feel obligated to point to the original cannon literature: https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

I started learning Rust and like how the compiler is fussy about things. My plan was to implement the data structures I knew, but I got stuck at the singly linked list's remove() method. I've read the book as well, but I have no clue how to simplify this further:

My impression from the article is that Zig provides several different hashtables and not all of them are broken in this way.

This reminds me of Aria's comment in her Rust tutorial https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ about failing to kill LinkedList. One philosophy (and the one Rust chose) for a stdlib is that this is only where things should live when they're so commonly needed that essentially everybody needs them either directly or to talk about. So, HashTable is needed by so much otherwise unrelated software that qualifies, BloomFilter, while it's real useful for some people, not so much. Aria cleaned out Rust's set of standard library containers before Rust 1.0, trying to keep only those most people would need. LinkedList isn't a good general purpose data structure, but, it was too popular and Aria was not able to remove it.

Having multiple hash tables feels like a win (they're optimized for different purposes) but may cost too much in terms of the necessary testing to ensure they all hit the quality you want.

> Cyclic references can be dealt with runtime safety checks too - like Rc and Weak.

Indeed. Starting out with code sprinkled with Rc, Weak, RefCell, etc is perfectly fine and performance will probably not be worse than in any other safe languages. And if you do this, Rust is pretty close to those languages in ease of use for what are otherwise complex topics in Rust.

A good reference for different approaches is Learn Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

Second, once you've finished something introductory like The Book, read Learning Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists. It really helped me to understand what ownership and borrowing actually mean in practical terms. If you don't mind paying for learning materials, a lot of people recommend Programming Rust, Second Edition by Blandy, Orendorff, and Tindall as either a complement, follow-up, or alternative to The Book.

Learning Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists which highlights a lot of the differences with how you need to structure your code in Rust compared to other languages.