I personally factorize as soon as there are two copies, but do not hesitate to inline the code and redo the abstraction when there is a 3rd use if it doesn’t fit. I find it much easier to inline and re-abstact a bad abstraction, than check if two copies are indeed identical.

The exception is business logic. Usually I want all of them to be dupplicates because there is a very high chance that it’s just accidental that part of the logic is similar. I take great care to have good primitives but the actual business logic that glue those primitives together is written as many time as needed.

First experience with #jj #jujitsu

I tried the equivalent of git add -p (jj squash -i).

• I realize that it’s closer to git add --interactive (which I find much more complicated and less productive)
• I wasn’t able to edit a hunk (like the e key in git add -p) which I use a lot to split debug statements from real work

I generated a conflict (as I expected)

• I found no way to show the original diff
• jj undo did not worked (I have not been able to undo the jj squash that introduced the conflict

Very not impressed so far. Fortunately it was a test repo.

Like how the average computer user is never going to […] install Firefox or whatever.

Not right know but in 2005-2010 (or something like that), the average user was installing firefox because IE was so bad. It used to be at 80% market share IIRC.

It’s really nice to see this RFC progress

I never realised it was that simple to do. Thanks a lot to answer the OP question. I had the same for longer than I wish to admit given how easy the answer was!

I think you have a hard time understanding the différence between “not possible” and “much harder”.

In Rust, the code does not compile.

In C++ the code compile, but

• if you have a test case
• this test case triggers the bug (it is not guarateed to properly reproduce you production environment since it depends on the parameters of the allocator of your vector)
• you use ubsan

… then the bug will be caught.

Yes it is possible, noone says the opposite. But you can’t deny it’s harder. And because its harder, more bugs get past review, most notably security bugs as demonstrated again and again in many studies. The

That’s why I did not said it was impossible, just order of magnitude harder to catch in C++ compared to Rust.

To have asan finding the bug, you need to have a valid unit test, that has a similar enough workload. Otherwise you may not see the bug with asan if the vector doesn’t grow (and thus ref would still be valid, not triggering UB), leading to a production-only bug.

Asan is a wonderfull tool, but you can’t deny it’s much harder to use and much less reliable than just running your compiler.

void foo() {
    std::vector v = {0, 1, 2, 4};
    const auto& ref = v[1];
    add_missing_values(v);
    std::cout << ref << "\n";
}

void add_missing_values(std::vector<int>& v) {
    // ...
    v.push_back(3);
}

Neither foo(), nor add_missing_values() looks suspicious. Nonetheless, if v.push_back(3) requires v to grow, then ref becomes an invalid reference and std::cout << ref becomes UB (use after free). In Rust this would not compiles.

It is order of magnitudes easier to have lifetime errors in C++ than in Rust (use after free, double free, data races, use before initialisation, …)

Is it possible to do in Rust?

Yes

Is possible to do in Rust, by mistake, and not easily caught by a review?

Definitively not.

DRY and YAGNI are awesome iif you also practice YNIRN (You Need It Right Now)! Otherwise you just get boilerplate of spaghetti

You got me in the first 3 quarters, not gonna lie!

There are cases where instead of origin/master..HEAD you may want to use @{upstream}..HEAD instead to compare with the upstream of your current branch. It’s unfortunately quite unknown.

The fact that rustc has bugs (which is what cve-rs exploit) doesn’t invalidate that rust the language is memory safe.

This post from 2022 was very interesting:

There are approximately 1.5 million total lines of Rust code in AOSP across new functionality and components […] These are low-level components that require a systems language which otherwise would have been implemented in C++.

To date, there have been zero memory safety vulnerabilities discovered in Android’s Rust code.

https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-languages-in-android-13.html

git worktree could become your new friend then :)

The quote (and the associated discussion) is such an important part of Rust and why I love this language so much. Anything that can be automated should at one point be automated reliably, and the sooner the better.

It’s a question of workflow. Git doesn’t guide you (it’s really workflow agnostic) and I find it easier to taillor CLI to fit my exact need, or use whatever was recently added (like worktrees a few years ago). I have yet to find a GUI/TUI that I’m not frustrated with at one point but everyone has its own preferences.

If you use the git command line (and I do) you should spam git log --graph (usualy with --oneline).

And for your filesystem example I sure do hope you use tree!

Thank you! I didn’t realized that I was using my lemmy account and not my mastodon account.

I absolutely agree that method extraction can be abused. One should not forget that locality is important. Functionnal idioms do help to minimise the layer of intermediate functions. Lamda/closure helps too by having the function much closer to its use site. And local variables can sometime be a better choice than having a function that return just an expression.