Rusty 🦀 Femboy 🏳️🌈@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 16 hours agoI love Rustlemmy.blahaj.zoneexternal-linkmessage-square47fedilinkarrow-up1208arrow-down114
arrow-up1194arrow-down1external-linkI love Rustlemmy.blahaj.zoneRusty 🦀 Femboy 🏳️🌈@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 16 hours agomessage-square47fedilink
minus-squareporous_grey_matter@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up9·13 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-212 hours agoI just use the HashCode class and compare the results.
minus-squareDeckweiss@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·edit-212 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_matter@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·12 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.
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.