I think he meant "show me a true linked list / node graph in rust that isn't unsafe". The reason being its not possible using c-style pointer following (or without just putting everything auto-pointers). What you've shown is exactly the tradeoff they were referring to. In rust, the answer is: make sure lifetime of all memory is explicitly managed, then use integers for the 'links' between nodes.
His point was that for his programming, he wants to be able to make real pointers and real linked lists with memory unsafe, which Rust makes difficult or opaque. For example with linked list, you could simulate (to avoid unsafe), by either boxing everything (so all refs are actually smart pointers), or you can use a container with scoped memory lifetime, and have integers in an array that are the "next" pointer. In addition to extra complexity, the "integers as edges" doesn't actually solve the complexity, it just means you can't get a bad memory error (you can still have 'pointers' that point to the wrong index if you're rolling your own).
Same with your graph code. Using a COO representation for a graph does in theory make it "memory safe" (albeit more clumsy to use if you are doing pointer-following logic), and it also introduces other subtle bugs if your logic is wrong (e.g. you have edge 100 but actually those nodes were removed, so now you're pointing at the wrong node).
I think the point (which I agree with for things like linked list, graph, compiler) is that depending on your usecase, the "safety" guarantees of rust are just making it harder to write the simplest most understandable code. Now instead of: `Node* next` I have lifetimes, integer references, two collections (nodes and edges) to keep in sync, smart pointers, etc. Previously my complexity was to make sure `next != null`, now its a ton of boilerplate and abstractions, performance hits, or more subtle bugs (like 'next' indices getting out of sync with the array of 'nodes').
If there was a way to explicitly track the lifetime of an arbitrary graph/tree of pointers at compile time, we wouldn't need garbage collection -- its not solvable at compile time, and the complexity has to live somewhere.
alt Hacker News
I think he meant "show me a true linked list / node graph in rust that isn't unsafe". The reason being its not possible using c-style pointer following (or without just putting everything auto-pointers). What you've shown is exactly the tradeoff they were referring to. In rust, the answer is: make sure lifetime of all memory is explicitly managed, then use integers for the 'links' between nodes.
His point was that for his programming, he wants to be able to make real pointers and real linked lists with memory unsafe, which Rust makes difficult or opaque. For example with linked list, you could simulate (to avoid unsafe), by either boxing everything (so all refs are actually smart pointers), or you can use a container with scoped memory lifetime, and have integers in an array that are the "next" pointer. In addition to extra complexity, the "integers as edges" doesn't actually solve the complexity, it just means you can't get a bad memory error (you can still have 'pointers' that point to the wrong index if you're rolling your own).
Same with your graph code. Using a COO representation for a graph does in theory make it "memory safe" (albeit more clumsy to use if you are doing pointer-following logic), and it also introduces other subtle bugs if your logic is wrong (e.g. you have edge 100 but actually those nodes were removed, so now you're pointing at the wrong node).
I think the point (which I agree with for things like linked list, graph, compiler) is that depending on your usecase, the "safety" guarantees of rust are just making it harder to write the simplest most understandable code. Now instead of: `Node* next` I have lifetimes, integer references, two collections (nodes and edges) to keep in sync, smart pointers, etc. Previously my complexity was to make sure `next != null`, now its a ton of boilerplate and abstractions, performance hits, or more subtle bugs (like 'next' indices getting out of sync with the array of 'nodes').
If there was a way to explicitly track the lifetime of an arbitrary graph/tree of pointers at compile time, we wouldn't need garbage collection -- its not solvable at compile time, and the complexity has to live somewhere.