rust-orphan-rules VS SharpLab

Well, unless someone comes up with better, compatible rules, the orpan rules are gonna stick around.

Additionally there are other issues with rust currently. Compile time code (ala constexpr) is not up to par with C++20 (not really close). The const generic aren't as powerful as C++20 which added non primitive non type template parameters (though with you stuck with C++14, it actually is significantly better than what you have, again, if you're going to use C++, just use 20). Generics accepting closures is a bit more of an ordeal in rust, compared to C++. Also C++'s Duck Typed templates allow for some uncharacteristically strong typing compared to what is expressible in Rust generics currently. Now, duck typed templates do have major downsides, for example the entire feature of concepts is completely irrelevant in rust, but required for sane DTT type bounds, but they also have major upsides. Rust currently doesn't have "negative trait bounds", basically "This objected does not implement this trait, or std::enable_if> or the equivalent concepts implementation. Rust also doesn't have trait specializations, basically template specialization. Do note all features I've talked about to this point have nightly options, they just are at various stages of being stable/complete. Another issue is the orphan rule, though this is kind of a problem in C++ too in some respects, and that's unlikely to change drastically, since there are legitimate reasons for it's existence. For a lot of code none of these things are big deals, others they are, which is why you find inconsistent feed back on these issues.

Not that simple... hence why Orphan rule is still in-place. The struct wrapper was implemented in Rust as a temporary safe work-around. However, they are making progress on a solution: https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules/issues/1

That's still not an entirely complete explanation because there's more nuanced situations which aren't completely foreign but are foreign enough that if allowed, two crates could write the same impls. Some of the definitions are still unofficial as far as am I'm aware. For the best reference I’ve seen so far see this for more details.

In our crate the compiler doesn't know when calling MyTrait methods on MyStruct whether to use the implementation defined in crate 3 or crate 4! Rust has a set of orphan rules to prevent this situation from happening.

Sadly because of the rusts orphan rule you cannot implement a Trait on a Type where you do not own one or the other. So, apart from upstream contributions your only options are either a new Trait or a new Type.

If anyone is looking for additional background about orphan rules, check out https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules

Do these all compile to the exact same thing?

https://sharplab.io/#v2:CYLg1APgAgTAjAWAFBQMwAJboMLoN7LpHoCW...

Yes, so you are right.

Recently, while creating some experimental C# source code generators (xafero/csharp-generators), I was just concatenating strings together. Like you do, you know, if things have to go very quickly. If you have a simple use case, use a formatted multi-line string or some template library like scriban. But I searched for a way to generate more and more complicated logic easily - like for example, adding raw SQL handler methods to my pre-generated DBSet-like classes for my ADO.NET experiment. You could now say: Use Roslyn and that's really fine if you look everything up in a website like SharpLab, which shows immediately the syntax tree of our C# code.

One results in MOVSX, the other in MOVZX [1]. The difference thus is sign/zero extension when moving to the larger register. However, they seem to perform pretty much identical if I'm reading Agner Fog's instruction tables correctly.

[1] https://sharplab.io/#v2:C4LghgzgtgPgAgJgIwFgBQcDMACR2DC2A3ut...

If you don't have an IDE, you can use SharpLab.io or dotnet fiddle

The closest online tool I can think of would be SharpLab, but you can only choose between Roslyn's git branches instead of C# versions.

Your code is destructuring two properties and discarding one of them. It doesn't work with a single property: https://sharplab.io/#v2:C4LgTgrgdgNAJiA1AHwAICYAMBYAUBgRj2Nw...

I think that records don't generate a deconstruct method when they only have one property, but even if you manually define one you'll get an error on `var (varName) = ...`

- LinqPad is great and I love, but, IMO, it is not the best tool to start with. It does not provide intellisense or debugger in the free version. Assuming you do not want to pay for this licence just to play a little with the language, I'd suggest https://sharplab.io/. It is not as powerfull as LinqPad, but at least it gives you suggestions.