So, maybe add a few features to Zig and we'll have a Rust alternative for many use-cases?
For borrow checker, I still think a combo of static analysis and concurrent GC's could help. Pair a static analyzer, like Infer, with your code that doesn't borrow check. If it says it's safe, you're good to go. If part of it is safe, other parts get ref-counted or a concurrent GC by default until proven safe.
Users get benefits of all safe code in Rust. They can write their own code as fast as with a GC'd language with smaller-than-usual, performance costs. Anything proven safe by static analysis goes faster without the GC. What do you all think?
steveklabnik · 4h ago
The problem with this strategy is similar to what happens with escape analysis: you make a small change, and suddenly the performance aspects can change drastically.
The errors are useful design pressure on a system, not something you actually want to just codegen in a drastically different way to fix.
For borrow checker, I still think a combo of static analysis and concurrent GC's could help. Pair a static analyzer, like Infer, with your code that doesn't borrow check. If it says it's safe, you're good to go. If part of it is safe, other parts get ref-counted or a concurrent GC by default until proven safe.
Users get benefits of all safe code in Rust. They can write their own code as fast as with a GC'd language with smaller-than-usual, performance costs. Anything proven safe by static analysis goes faster without the GC. What do you all think?
The errors are useful design pressure on a system, not something you actually want to just codegen in a drastically different way to fix.