Rusty 🦀 Femboy 🏳️🌈@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer HumorEnglish · 10 hours agoI love Rustlemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square41fedilinkarrow-up1158arrow-down112
arrow-up1146arrow-down1imageI love Rustlemmy.blahaj.zoneRusty 🦀 Femboy 🏳️🌈@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer HumorEnglish · 10 hours agomessage-square41fedilink
minus-squareporous_grey_matterlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·7 hours agoIt’s not hard, just if you’re doing it for a struct with a lot of fields it’s a lot of boilerplate
minus-squareGetOffMyLan@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down1·edit-26 hours agoI just use the HashCode class and compare the results. Pretty sure there’s a source generator for it as well nowadays.
minus-squareDeckweiss@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·edit-26 hours agoMy IDE can do that for me. And it was able to do that pre AI boom. Yes, the code ends up more verbose, but I just collapse it. So from a modern dev UX perspective, this shouldn’t be a major difference.
minus-squareporous_grey_matterlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·6 hours agoEven if the tool works perfectly, you have to run it every time you change something. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s still much nicer to just have a macro to derive it at compile time.
It’s not hard, just if you’re doing it for a struct with a lot of fields it’s a lot of boilerplate
I just use the HashCode class and compare the results.
Pretty sure there’s a source generator for it as well nowadays.
My IDE can do that for me. And it was able to do that pre AI boom. Yes, the code ends up more verbose, but I just collapse it.
So from a modern dev UX perspective, this shouldn’t be a major difference.
Even if the tool works perfectly, you have to run it every time you change something. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s still much nicer to just have a macro to derive it at compile time.