I am really getting annoyed of the ‘@rustlang features are zero cost’ crowd. They are zero cost when used without a runtime. So yes technically they are but technically falling out of a plain gas zero impact on your health ... hitting the ground does. It’s so dishonest...
-
-
“Zero cost abstraction” does not mean “abstractions have no cost”, it means that the language gives you an abstraction that you couldn’t code by hand any better
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
The issue is less the cost of the zero cost abstraction (while I do find that bad marketing, I can’t think of a better less misleading wording either), the issue is that the actual cost, namely the runtime scheduling exists and is not zero cost by any definition.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I think they meant zero lost?pic.twitter.com/3mBhKvyWJn
11:38 AM - 3 Dec 2019
from Berlin, Germany
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.