afdbcreid

The problem here is experimental evidence, which is the general reason they focus on mathematics.

Since undefined behavior is impossible, that means there are only two options.

Sure, but in this context, the meaning was clear to refer to the differences from C++.

I agree that the best leaders are devastating. /s

Java and C# did kill C++. They just did it only in places they were feasible. People forget that before them, it was very common to write application and even serve code in C++. Now Rust is targeting its remaining niche(s).

Here's a tip most Rust users don't know about extension traits: if you put `#[rust_analyzer::prefer_underscore_import]` above your trait (and you're using rust-analyzer and not RustRover), autocompletion and the import assist will import the trait `as _` by default, which is very useful for extension traits.

> True, but there's no reason PGO can't eventually be implemented for native AOT.

It already is implemented, I believe. The thing I wondered is how NativeAOT could be faster, which is what GP claimed.

(Also, practically it should be slower because NativeAOT is based on the JIT and the JIT is worse at optimizing than LLVM).

You mean 200B?

That means those are probably builders and not setters. Do they change an existing object or a newly-constructed or to-be-constructed object?

It does but only on the stack, known as `ref struct`. E.g. `Span<T>` is an interior pointer, and this is extremely common in modern C#.

He writes regularly. Sometimes explaining C++, rarely explaining C#, sometimes historic stories, sometimes current stories, etc..

You can always not enable PGO of course. What I meant is that I don't expect NativeAOT to do better.