undefined | Better HN

0 pointsragnese5y ago0 comments

Which I also don't understand. Is that a style of overusing classes where functions would suffice (FooHelper)? Or is it something about the language? Because almost all popular languages have classes. Rust and Go call them "struct", but it's the same thing. Swift has "class" and "struct", but they're both the same thing as a C++ class.

0 comments

iopq5y ago

Rust structs are not classes. Rust puts structs inline (on the stack), classes are virtual. Since Rust is a systems programming language, it's an actual distinction that makes a difference

ragneseOP5y ago

I'm not sure I follow. Both C++ and Rust allow us to put structs/classes on the stack or the heap. Rust has trait objects which use a vtables. Are Rust traits the same as "classes" then?

When people say "OOP" or "class-oriented-programming" are you saying that they're referring to implementation details such as memory allocation?

int_19h5y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "classes are virtual", but if it's virtual dispatch, then that's completely orthogonal to allocating objects on the stack vs the heap.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse