I know this is a small point, but you likely mean "race condition" here. Rust already guarantees safe code to be free of "data races", and this blog post doesn't discuss unsafe in any way.
Two other points that came up while I was reading:
1. I get that this is something you did once for an internal project, but this is what macros and derive_macros are made for.
2. The AI that you used to help write the post left its mark a little too deep. The cliched phrases make an appearance at the start of every section and it really starts to grate by the end.
I know this is a small point, but you likely mean "race condition" here. Rust already guarantees safe code to be free of "data races", and this blog post doesn't discuss unsafe in any way.
Two other points that came up while I was reading:
1. I get that this is something you did once for an internal project, but this is what macros and derive_macros are made for.
2. The AI that you used to help write the post left its mark a little too deep. The cliched phrases make an appearance at the start of every section and it really starts to grate by the end.
“The second condition falls out of the first”. Hi claude!
AI written article. I hate how I can quickly pick this up these days and I hate how I see it everywhere recently.
If you don’t have time to write, I don’t have time to read it.
No kidding, it drives me crazy. The tone is always so authoritative and dramatic, like every fact is a mic drop moment.
I need to get back to writing some of my own articles I've been meaning to write, as a palate cleanser.
I stopped reading at "Here’s the observation that started everything:".
Surely you can express this in C++ just as you could in rust…
I don’t think this needed to be parallelized.
[flagged]