Why do rust arrays have to have a size known at compile time? This restriction is not found in other programming languages.
I'm sure this helps the borrow checker or bounds check but why precisely?
It is. C used to have variable-length arrays as a required part of the standard, but that was made an optional feature in C99. C++ (like Rust) does not have variable-length arrays at all.
If you need a dynamically-sized array in any language, usually you allocate the array on the heap — for instance, with malloc/free, or with a vector type like C++’s std::vector or Rust’s Vec.
As for why, I’m not entirely sure — hopefully someone with more expertise than me can chime in. I’m not sure if it adds too much complexity in the compiler, or if they were simply deemed too unsafe even for C/C++ (since it’s way too easy to accidentally overflow the stack with VLAs).
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
For dynamically-sized arrays you'd typically use a `Vec<T>` in Rust (or a `Box<[T]>`). These imply the array is stored as a separate heap allocation.
If you need an array of unknown size, then you can heap allocate it or use std::vec::Vec (usually via the vec! macro) to provide a nice interface for doing so.
If you need nested structs, e.g. for a tree, then you need to make the field, e.g. the children nodes, pointers or a Box type.
Rust tries to make what it's doing with memory obvious. Other languages with unknown array sizes do a lot of potentially unpredictable memory allocations and copies.
Having a known-length array type in a programming language:
* allows the compiler to make certain optimizations using the information it has on the length, especially if the length is small
* allows the programmer to enforce constraints on the length of arrays at compilation time, which can make program correctness more evident and easier to accomplish
> This restriction is not found in other programming languages.
Ever heard about C or C++ or Go? Even dynamic languages like Julia allow defining such types.
It's just that you (for now(1)) can't put dynamic sized types (DST) on the stack, but you can coerce a `&[T; SIZE]` to a `&[T]`. The later has the size encoded in the pointer. Which combined with rusts system to compiler time enforce proper aliasing and RAII allows nice sub-slicing like e.g the `split` at method which allows splitting a `&[T]` into two non-overlapping `&[T]`'s.
(1): There is ongoing work to allow DST on the stack in some limited circumstances which would help with some things, but I'm not the biggest fan of it. For example because this is in many but not all cases incompatible with `async/await` and the not yet existing generators.
I think the rest of these replies are presenting a false dichotomy; having a compile-time sized array doesn't change that.
Rust could easily have all three (compile-time-sized, runtime-sized, and Vec) but they chose not to. Probably because Vec is mostly good enough (albeit wasting a bit of memory).
Box<[T]> is close, but it's a pointer + length, where the pointer is to the heap, whereas [T; N] is a series of values, and can be on the stack. That's why it's a "boxed slice" and not an "array."
And yes, any slice type is runtime sized. That's why slices exist; they have a length stored in them to keep track of how long they are. This goes for &[T], Box<[T]>, Arc<[T]>, any of them.
// returns a heap-allocated buffer of length new_arr_length
fn my_malloc<T>(new_arr_length: usize) -> Box<[T]> {
todo!()
}
I guess what it comes down to is: slices can't own their data, can they (I'm genuinely not sure)? If so, and this is indeed a slice, then it should be impossible for this to work in this way
Though, in that case it would also seem fairly pointless (as opposed to a &[T])
// returns a heap-allocated buffer of length new_arr_length
fn my_malloc<T: Default + Clone>(new_arr_length: usize) -> Box<[T]> {
vec![T::default(); new_arr_length].into_boxed_slice()
}
The problem is that "slice" can mean both &[T] and [T]. [T] is an unsized type, so it needs to be behind a pointer. Putting it behind a & is the common case, and doesn't have ownership because &T doesn't own T, but you can also put it behind Box<T>, which does have owership over T.
> Though, in that case it would also seem fairly pointless (as opposed to a &[T])
Yes, it's very niche. I've never used one in all my years of Rust. But Box<[T]> is two thirds of the size of Vec<T> (no need for capacity, since capacity == length) and maybe there are cases where that is significant, for example.
use std::sync::Arc;
fn foobar(s: &str) -> Arc<str> {
Arc::from(s.to_string())
}
This should provide interesting reading -- it's a discussion on unsized local variables, e.g. VLA's on the stack.
OutOfBounds errors aren't checked at compile time unless it's a `const` type IIRC.
There are circumstances where Rust can calculate the array index at compile time and, if it can, it will result in a compilation error if the index is out of bounds. Of course, this is a best-effort analysis and doesn't work for all possible cases. Here's some Rust code, the first three indexing operations fail at compile-time, but the last doesn't:
let x = [1,2,3];
x[4]; // compile error
const FOUR: usize = 4;
x[FOUR]; // compile error
let y = 4;
x[y]; // compile error
fn foo() -> usize { 4 }
x[foo()]; // runtime error