rust-analyzer-wasm VS rust-playground

It shouldn't be using that much memory for small code like you'd expect on the playground. There's even a (limited) web version at https://ra-wasm.netlify.app/.

Raised a minor issue - looks like in the final version "loading wasm" sticks around. https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer-wasm/issues/2

> The biggest annoying magic I found with respect to Box (and other std containers like Rc) is that they’re the only ones capable of storing fat dyn pointers. You can’t construct a hybrid_rc::Rc like you can with Box/Rc.

Anything can store fat dyn pointers, they're just like any other type in that regards.

Constructing them for a specific trait is easy and possible on stable (e.g. adding a `as_debug(MyBox) -> MyBox` method).

Making it possible to construct them for any trait is special to the built in pointers... on stable. On nightly with unstable features it's possible (and easy) to make any smart pointer type do this.

Code examples:

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&editi...

That would be true if you used `Vec::clear` too, it doesn't allocate a new vector. My point was that you still end up running Drop implementations with RepeatedField, just not all at once. See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That's a valid Unix path, but rust's quoting does nothing to stop it: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Self-referential structs work fine in Rust and always have.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

The compiler will correctly prevent you from moving the value.

The other way to have a struct that starts out as non-self-referential and then becomes self-referential can be achieved with `unsafe` and `Pin::new_unchecked`, which is how `async {}` is handled.

In rust as currently stands: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

On the other hand, both this wrapper and yours are counterproductive if the element size is dynamic (e.g. perhaps you're dealing with some nonsense like:)

    struct ITableColumn {

Overflow checks turn into two's compliments' wrapping, but that's only considered acceptable because bounds checks are not turned off.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds unnecessarily complicated and why I don't use Rust for any serious work.

This demonstrates the ABA problem in safe Rust: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Substitute the sleep with a combination of doing computation/work and the OS thread scheduler, and you can see how the bug surfaces.

You can also try Rust online using the Rust playground: https://play.rust-lang.org/

(Click ... beside build to get assembly) https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

Unfortunately the go playground doesn't seem to support emitting assembly?