this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
65 points (100.0% liked)

Rust

7470 readers
21 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NGram@piefed.ca 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The strict_* set of integer function look interesting though I'm unlikely to use something that panics by design. I'm sure that's useful in programs that panic to indicate problems. Do those exist? I always treat panics as a design failure.

Duration::from_mins() is useful for me since I've been doing Duration::from_secs(minutes * 60) for some things in my projects, which bugged me a bit.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The non-strict versions also panic by default, but only in debug mode. So if you were willing to use abs() you should be willing to use strict_abs().

Arguably a bit of a mistake to have the "obvious" function names be surprisingly unsafe, but I guess it's too late to fix that.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think this is where safety and performance are actually in conflict.

I think guaranteeing a panic leads to much worse code gen in this case.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago

Yes that's true, but the point is you should have to opt in to surprising or risky behaviour.