It wasn’t replacing one rust enum, it was replacing what are effectively multiple enums
replyHow so? It's replacing multiple enum variants, but just one enum, "enum Value".
reply(also; if anything, the title is implying the exact opposite of "Rust compiler was able to optimize ...", "Replacing a Rust [...] with [...]" is clearly moving away from Rust-magic to something else)
Probably in the sense that you can remove the word rust and nothing changes. It's not about some failure of rust to be efficient at enums, but the title says it is.
replyOP here: I think you're reading too much into the title. It's not about the failure of Rust. It's about where I stepped in with some custom optimizations for better performance. If you read the blog post, the solution implemented is very Rust-y as well. It uses a newtype with custom methods to try and make the code as nice and readable as possible.
replyFWIW this post was very well received on the Rust subreddit. They loved it and it got over 350 upvotes, so that community definitely didn't receive it as some sort of attack on Rust.
'Enum' is ill-defined so the addition of Rust is significant as it indicates what one can expect with how data is structured. There is nothing in that speaks to the Rust compiler or Rust being inefficient or anything of the sort. It remains unclear where this idea is coming from. There is nothing in title that would send you there.
replyUnless, again, the title was edited at some point?
If you replaced it with Zig, the situation changes.
replyI'd actually point at the other half of the title than the existing comment when being pedantic "Replacing [...] with a 64-Bit Word" isn't quite right, it was replaced with a manually packed 64-Bit Word and the occasional heap allocation.
replyI'm not sure being this pedantic is particularly useful in titles though...
It's worth calling out either way. It's not just an encoding scheme, it's a reasonably significant change in architecture.
reply