211
I love Rust
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
211 points (94.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
32483 readers
444 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I've only had to implement equality in C# but that didn't seem that hard of a problem. you just expand the operator = function
It's not hard, just if you're doing it for a struct with a lot of fields it's a lot of boilerplate
I just use the HashCode class and compare the results.
Pretty sure there's a source generator for it as well nowadays.
My IDE can do that for me. And it was able to do that pre AI boom. Yes, the code ends up more verbose, but I just collapse it.
So from a modern dev UX perspective, this shouldn't be a major difference.
What if youre working with library types? The problem is not not you compare a bunch of fields but that the implementation on those members is most likely bad.
Even if the tool works perfectly, you have to run it every time you change something. It's not the end of the world, but it's still much nicer to just have a macro to derive it at compile time.
Then you should also override
Equals(object),GetHashCode, and implementIEquatable<T>.Thankfully a lot of the usual boilerplate code can be avoided using a
recordclass or struct:Oh well, It does show how little I do have to actually use that. It just hasn't come up that much