When people say "Rust is just as complex as C++," I think value categories are a great example of why it's actually simpler, even if it also seems complex. C++ has three primary categories: prvalue, xvalue, and lvalue. There's also glvalue and rvalue. Rust has two: a place (which is a glvalue) and a value (which is a prvalue).
C++ needs those extra categories, they exist for good reasons. But it is more complex.
Additionally, the "r" and "l" may lead one to incorrectly guess that rvalues and lvalues are related to their position in an expression. But alas, they aren't; there are lvalues that cannot appear in the left-hand side of an expression.
I think what you'd most likely do here is something like:
const HUGE: usize = 10_000_000;
let mut values = Box::<[i32]>::new_uninit_slice(HUGE);
for k in 0..HUGE {
values[k].write(42);
}
let values = values.assume_init();
Edited to fix early enter oops, typo in loop length that'd be caught if I'd tried this.
I am not so sure. A purely type-system-based API (in place initialization + MaybeUninit ?) or a new "static" Vec type can already solve most of the problems with Box::new([val; N]).
I also enjoyed the linked article about the 5 value types: https://blog.knatten.org/2018/03/09/lvalues-rvalues-glvalues.... For some reason I never bothered to look up these terms as they sounded so obscure. Turns out the taxonomy is pretty clear and it's just a refinement of the existing two value types (lvalues and rvalues).
EDIT: I do think the naming is rather confusing and inconsistent, though.
This is like saying 1 + 2 isn't addition because the compiler will optimize it away. It isn't an addition instruction in the emitted code but logically speaking it is addition.
Similarly just because a compiler may optimize a prvalue away doesn't change the fact that a prvalue by definition of the language is a temp.
The article specifically points out that this isn't about optimization. A temporary will not be created even with -O0 (you can observe this by putting logging into the copy and move constructors).
Yup - I wish that was not the case, I've learned relatively recently that the state the variable becomes (after moving) is "valid, but unspecified" - e.g. you can still destroy it (I guess how would RAII work otherwise), you can still assign to it, and even check some basic properties (!) - but you can't know anything about the actual value (contents) it carries (weird)
It's like a tombstone for a deleted file, object - something that tells you - "Here lived Obj B Peterson, was nice folk, but moved away to a higher place"
Annoyingly, it depends on the type, sometimes with unintuitive consequences.
Move a unique_ptr? Guaranteed that the moved-from object is now null (fine). Move a std::optional? It remains engaged, but the wrapped object is moved-from (weird).
Those semantics are entirely on you, the implementer, to enforce. Move semantics is basically a contract between move ctor/assignop impls and dtor impls: the former must somehow signal moved-out status (typically by nulling out a ptr or setting a flag), and the latter must respect it. And of course the client shouldn't use a moved-from object in invalid ways. All of this is completely ad-hoc and unenforceable.
Well, it's not on me, because I'm often the user of someones library, framework, etc, and then it's up to whether it was concious or unconcious decision that the type behaved that way, and then you have to mix things to work together and you end up with this really "unspecified" way, hence you put some rules - "Don't do this" - don't use object after std::move, even if it might be allowed.
Well they couldn't do much better without supporting destructive moves. Rust shows how simple move semantics can be when they're designed into the language.
It may seem inelegant but it pretty cleanly addresses real edge cases in systems-y code where the object necessarily has a shorter lifetime than its associated memory for strict safety.
In these cases, something resembling "use after free" is unavoidable if the move is destructive even though the object is semantically dead. Putting the object in a sentinel state where it is alive but not usable captures the semantics of deferred destruction pretty well.
Not really. In the vast majority of cases this is all elided. There is no cost, either in lines of code or runtime.
When you are decoupling memory lifetimes from object lifetimes it is pretty explicit. It isn't like this sneaks into your code on its own. You have to manage the implications of it yourself.
C++ is so complicated that I had to almost fail my exam and few years later I had to relearn C, get some experience in a real business project, and then I could start learning C++.
I find that understanding how memory is layed out in executable, how the C works in terms of stack, symbols etc is the introductory knowledge I had to obtain to even think about C++. Not sure what's there now, because I saw recently some great compiler warnings, but I'm pretty sure that I did convert a prvalue to a pointer reference (&) at least once in my life and later failed with memory problems, but no compiler errors
Getting failures later after coercing something to a reference is even easier than that; just deference a null pointer when passing to an argument that takes a reference; no warnings or errors! https://godbolt.org/z/xf5d9jKeh
If you are working with C++ in this day and age, regardless of which compiler you use to output your actual binaries, you really owe it to yourself to compile as many source files as possible with other diagnostic tools, foremost clang-tidy.
It will catch that and a lot of iffy stuff.
If you want to go deeper, you can also add your own diagnostics, which can have knowledge specific to your program.
To this day, I'm still having trouble remembering these names: lvalue, rvalue, prvalue, xvalue, glvalue.
While there was only lvalue, and rvalue - it was easy - LEFT and RIGHT - gives you the right intuition.
But now - if it has identity - "glvalue" - why not "ivalue" or "idvalue"?
And then can be moved - "rvalue" ? Why "rvalue", why not "mvalue", or "move-value"? Why the language have to be so constricted when comes to such an important bit - I mean we spell "value" fully, but miss the important bit...
Anyway just a rant... I'm having the same issue understanding "math" sometimes because of all the cryptic notations, and archaic symbols used.
I agree the names are confusing. But it's just a simple matter of having a diagram nearby to remember which is which. (I think I first saw that diagram on Stack Overflow.)
There have been a lot of times in science when I have trouble remembering names but have no trouble at all understanding the concepts behind these names. I just keep an index card nearby. I noticed this tendency of mine as early as high school. For example, in chemistry I sometimes couldn't remember which is dextro and which is levo, but I understand chirality and know how they are different. In physics I sometimes forget which is the magnetic B field and which is the magnetic H field, though I understand the difference between them. I don't use these concepts often so I haven't internalized the names. I think it's totally alright to have a name–concept dissociation for these.
I completely get it, that the language science has developed works great for it's own practicioners, but not really well for outsiders.
Good luck explaining these "*values" to someone that hasn't touched C++ in a while. Then again other languages have the same peculiarities though. meh.
I think they wanted to preserve the meaning of the existing two value types. The naming is still bad, though, because it's inconsistent. For example, why should 'xvalue' belong to 'generalized lvalue' when it also belongs to 'rvalue'? Aren't 'l' and 'r' supposed to be opposites on the same dimension (movability)?
The current naming is confusing exactly because 'lvalue' should be a supertype in one dimension, just like 'rvalue', and not a subtype (here: 'ilvalue'). I think they took this shortcut because 'plvalue' doesn't really exist, but it's still inconsistent. Let's not even talk about 'xvalue' (here: 'irvalue').
[Edited] For anyone like me stuck on his language: the phrase "move from" should be understood as a technical term loosely related to the English language meaning of the words. I think the post would be better if he explained this terminology; as it is you have to know an awful lot about the topic he is writing about to even parse what he is saying.
There is a pretty good stack overflow post that quuxplusone linked below. How they explain it:
Moving from lvalues
Sometimes, we want to move from lvalues. That is, sometimes we want the compiler to treat an lvalue as if it were an rvalue, so it can invoke the move constructor, even though it could be potentially unsafe. For this purpose, C++11 offers a standard library function template called std::move inside the header <utility>. This name is a bit unfortunate, because std::move simply casts an lvalue to an rvalue; it does not move anything by itself. It merely enables moving. Maybe it should have been named std::cast_to_rvalue or std::enable_move, but we are stuck with the name by now.
Now, if you don't know what "move semantics" is, then "lvalues can't be moved from" isn't terribly helpful, and if you do then it's tautological, so I'm not saying you're wrong to criticize. :) But in a C++ context, "move" does have a single specific meaning — the one he's using properly if opaquely-to-non-C++ers.
But here's the gist: sometimes you have an object you want to copy, but then abandon the original. Maybe it's to return an object from a function. Maybe it's to insert the object into a larger structure. In these cases, copying can be expensive and it would be nice if you could just "raid" the original object to steal bits of it and construct the "copy" out of the raided bits. C++11 enabled this with rvalue references, std::move, and rvalue reference constructors.
This added a lot of "what the hell is this" to C++ code and a lot of new mental-model stuff to track for programmers. I understand why it was all added, but I have deep misgivings about the added complexity.
I find that this can reduce overall complexity. It makes it possible to use objects that can not be copied (such as a file descriptor wrapper) and moving can in most cases not fail. Without move semantics you'd have to use smart pointers to get similar results but with extra overhead.
Interesting stuff! I knew about lvalues and rvalues but I never knew about concepts like "glvalue" or "prvalue" or "xvalue" that the linked page talks about.
It makes sense that C++ avoids unnecessary copying or object creation whenever possible, that's pretty much C++'s M.O.
Not exactly. This was originally submitted 6 days ago, and was put in the SCP but took till now to get on the front page. Just as the discussion was developing, the original submission "expired" and disappeared from the front page.
Given that it's an active discussion with all comments posted in the past few hours, I've created a new copy to give it its full opportunity for visibility and discussion.
Only two of the upvotes and one of the comments was from before today, and it had no front page time until today. It's a lot stranger for a post to disappear completely from the rankings, just as the discussion is developing.
When people say "Rust is just as complex as C++," I think value categories are a great example of why it's actually simpler, even if it also seems complex. C++ has three primary categories: prvalue, xvalue, and lvalue. There's also glvalue and rvalue. Rust has two: a place (which is a glvalue) and a value (which is a prvalue).
C++ needs those extra categories, they exist for good reasons. But it is more complex.
Additionally, the "r" and "l" may lead one to incorrectly guess that rvalues and lvalues are related to their position in an expression. But alas, they aren't; there are lvalues that cannot appear in the left-hand side of an expression.
Are you referring to consts? Besides those, I can't really think of a counterexample.
> cannot appear in the left-hand side of an expression
Do you mean assignment?
To be fair, though, Rust really needs something morally like prvalues, to solve the heap initialization problem aka `Box::new([42; 10_000_000])`
I think what you'd most likely do here is something like:
Edited to fix early enter oops, typo in loop length that'd be caught if I'd tried this.Yes, it is possible that Rust will add more complexity here specifically, but also just in general. Just how it goes :)
I am not so sure. A purely type-system-based API (in place initialization + MaybeUninit ?) or a new "static" Vec type can already solve most of the problems with Box::new([val; N]).
This is actually a very nice explanation!
I also enjoyed the linked article about the 5 value types: https://blog.knatten.org/2018/03/09/lvalues-rvalues-glvalues.... For some reason I never bothered to look up these terms as they sounded so obscure. Turns out the taxonomy is pretty clear and it's just a refinement of the existing two value types (lvalues and rvalues).
EDIT: I do think the naming is rather confusing and inconsistent, though.
This is like saying 1 + 2 isn't addition because the compiler will optimize it away. It isn't an addition instruction in the emitted code but logically speaking it is addition.
Similarly just because a compiler may optimize a prvalue away doesn't change the fact that a prvalue by definition of the language is a temp.
The article specifically points out that this isn't about optimization. A temporary will not be created even with -O0 (you can observe this by putting logging into the copy and move constructors).
Or even =delete'ing them or (carefully) putting static_asserts inside them. They're not called, not instantiated, not nothing.
Being able to accidentally use a value after moving it is tragic.
Yup - I wish that was not the case, I've learned relatively recently that the state the variable becomes (after moving) is "valid, but unspecified" - e.g. you can still destroy it (I guess how would RAII work otherwise), you can still assign to it, and even check some basic properties (!) - but you can't know anything about the actual value (contents) it carries (weird)
It's like a tombstone for a deleted file, object - something that tells you - "Here lived Obj B Peterson, was nice folk, but moved away to a higher place"
> "valid, but unspecified"
Annoyingly, it depends on the type, sometimes with unintuitive consequences.
Move a unique_ptr? Guaranteed that the moved-from object is now null (fine). Move a std::optional? It remains engaged, but the wrapped object is moved-from (weird).
Move a vector? Unspecified.
Those semantics are entirely on you, the implementer, to enforce. Move semantics is basically a contract between move ctor/assignop impls and dtor impls: the former must somehow signal moved-out status (typically by nulling out a ptr or setting a flag), and the latter must respect it. And of course the client shouldn't use a moved-from object in invalid ways. All of this is completely ad-hoc and unenforceable.
Well, it's not on me, because I'm often the user of someones library, framework, etc, and then it's up to whether it was concious or unconcious decision that the type behaved that way, and then you have to mix things to work together and you end up with this really "unspecified" way, hence you put some rules - "Don't do this" - don't use object after std::move, even if it might be allowed.
I'm still baffled.
Well they couldn't do much better without supporting destructive moves. Rust shows how simple move semantics can be when they're designed into the language.
It may seem inelegant but it pretty cleanly addresses real edge cases in systems-y code where the object necessarily has a shorter lifetime than its associated memory for strict safety.
In these cases, something resembling "use after free" is unavoidable if the move is destructive even though the object is semantically dead. Putting the object in a sentinel state where it is alive but not usable captures the semantics of deferred destruction pretty well.
In practice it just means a lot of sentinel values and unuseful potential accesses.
Not really. In the vast majority of cases this is all elided. There is no cost, either in lines of code or runtime.
When you are decoupling memory lifetimes from object lifetimes it is pretty explicit. It isn't like this sneaks into your code on its own. You have to manage the implications of it yourself.
It's not about cost of correct code, it's about accidental wrong code.
That’s really not a thing. By default it is correct, you have to go out of your way to make it incorrect.
C++ is so complicated that I had to almost fail my exam and few years later I had to relearn C, get some experience in a real business project, and then I could start learning C++.
I find that understanding how memory is layed out in executable, how the C works in terms of stack, symbols etc is the introductory knowledge I had to obtain to even think about C++. Not sure what's there now, because I saw recently some great compiler warnings, but I'm pretty sure that I did convert a prvalue to a pointer reference (&) at least once in my life and later failed with memory problems, but no compiler errors
Getting failures later after coercing something to a reference is even easier than that; just deference a null pointer when passing to an argument that takes a reference; no warnings or errors! https://godbolt.org/z/xf5d9jKeh
If you are working with C++ in this day and age, regardless of which compiler you use to output your actual binaries, you really owe it to yourself to compile as many source files as possible with other diagnostic tools, foremost clang-tidy.
It will catch that and a lot of iffy stuff.
If you want to go deeper, you can also add your own diagnostics, which can have knowledge specific to your program.
https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/QueryBasedCustomChec...
Interestingly, GCC (but not Clang) detects but doesn't warn the UB and emits "ud2" with -O2: https://godbolt.org/z/61aYox7EP
To this day, I'm still having trouble remembering these names: lvalue, rvalue, prvalue, xvalue, glvalue.
While there was only lvalue, and rvalue - it was easy - LEFT and RIGHT - gives you the right intuition.
But now - if it has identity - "glvalue" - why not "ivalue" or "idvalue"?
And then can be moved - "rvalue" ? Why "rvalue", why not "mvalue", or "move-value"? Why the language have to be so constricted when comes to such an important bit - I mean we spell "value" fully, but miss the important bit...
Anyway just a rant... I'm having the same issue understanding "math" sometimes because of all the cryptic notations, and archaic symbols used.
I agree the names are confusing. But it's just a simple matter of having a diagram nearby to remember which is which. (I think I first saw that diagram on Stack Overflow.)
There have been a lot of times in science when I have trouble remembering names but have no trouble at all understanding the concepts behind these names. I just keep an index card nearby. I noticed this tendency of mine as early as high school. For example, in chemistry I sometimes couldn't remember which is dextro and which is levo, but I understand chirality and know how they are different. In physics I sometimes forget which is the magnetic B field and which is the magnetic H field, though I understand the difference between them. I don't use these concepts often so I haven't internalized the names. I think it's totally alright to have a name–concept dissociation for these.
I completely get it, that the language science has developed works great for it's own practicioners, but not really well for outsiders.
Good luck explaining these "*values" to someone that hasn't touched C++ in a while. Then again other languages have the same peculiarities though. meh.
I think they wanted to preserve the meaning of the existing two value types. The naming is still bad, though, because it's inconsistent. For example, why should 'xvalue' belong to 'generalized lvalue' when it also belongs to 'rvalue'? Aren't 'l' and 'r' supposed to be opposites on the same dimension (movability)?
Here's a suggestion in retrospect:
The current naming is confusing exactly because 'lvalue' should be a supertype in one dimension, just like 'rvalue', and not a subtype (here: 'ilvalue'). I think they took this shortcut because 'plvalue' doesn't really exist, but it's still inconsistent. Let's not even talk about 'xvalue' (here: 'irvalue').[Edited] For anyone like me stuck on his language: the phrase "move from" should be understood as a technical term loosely related to the English language meaning of the words. I think the post would be better if he explained this terminology; as it is you have to know an awful lot about the topic he is writing about to even parse what he is saying.
There is a pretty good stack overflow post that quuxplusone linked below. How they explain it:
"Move" in the sense of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3106110/what-is-move-sem...
Now, if you don't know what "move semantics" is, then "lvalues can't be moved from" isn't terribly helpful, and if you do then it's tautological, so I'm not saying you're wrong to criticize. :) But in a C++ context, "move" does have a single specific meaning — the one he's using properly if opaquely-to-non-C++ers.
He has a good article on that at [1]
But here's the gist: sometimes you have an object you want to copy, but then abandon the original. Maybe it's to return an object from a function. Maybe it's to insert the object into a larger structure. In these cases, copying can be expensive and it would be nice if you could just "raid" the original object to steal bits of it and construct the "copy" out of the raided bits. C++11 enabled this with rvalue references, std::move, and rvalue reference constructors.
This added a lot of "what the hell is this" to C++ code and a lot of new mental-model stuff to track for programmers. I understand why it was all added, but I have deep misgivings about the added complexity.
[1] https://blog.knatten.org/2018/03/09/lvalues-rvalues-glvalues...
I find that this can reduce overall complexity. It makes it possible to use objects that can not be copied (such as a file descriptor wrapper) and moving can in most cases not fail. Without move semantics you'd have to use smart pointers to get similar results but with extra overhead.
"move" means to pass into an r-value reference function parameter, for instance a move constructor, move assignment operator, or forwarding reference.
Interesting stuff! I knew about lvalues and rvalues but I never knew about concepts like "glvalue" or "prvalue" or "xvalue" that the linked page talks about.
It makes sense that C++ avoids unnecessary copying or object creation whenever possible, that's pretty much C++'s M.O.
> People sometimes call this “a temporary”, but, as is the main point of this article, that’s not necessarily true.
Old habits die hard? It used to always create a temporary right?
> It used to always create a temporary right?
Temporaries could still be elided in some cases before, but the semantics were still understood in terms of temporary objects.
Now some forms of elision are mandatory and elision+RVO semantics are understood as objects being directly created into the final named location.
Discussion (40 points, 6 days ago, 38 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45770577
Not exactly. This was originally submitted 6 days ago, and was put in the SCP but took till now to get on the front page. Just as the discussion was developing, the original submission "expired" and disappeared from the front page.
Given that it's an active discussion with all comments posted in the past few hours, I've created a new copy to give it its full opportunity for visibility and discussion.
Ah, well that's a strange maneuver (it wasn't a vote-less or discussion-less post before the SCP and you moving the comments)
Only two of the upvotes and one of the comments was from before today, and it had no front page time until today. It's a lot stranger for a post to disappear completely from the rankings, just as the discussion is developing.