• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Oh. There’s a still Rust-y way to do this? Nevermind.

    OP wanted stability and predictability. I suppose we’ll see how entrenched one library can become.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      The Rustinomicon has a chapter on it. The basics are quite simple: Declare non-opaque types to use layout matching the C ABI, export/import functions, some wibbles around name mangling. Option<T> vs. null pointers. Where things get a bit more involved is unwinding, but then you’re at the end of it, nothing should be shocking to anyone having written C.

      As to how Rusty it is… not very. I mean Rust has first-class FFI support, but the way FFI stuff is written is necessarily unidiomatic because you’re basically writing C in Rust syntax and you won’t get out of declaring your own functions `unsafe’ before you read the rest of the Rustinomicon to understand what properties you need to ensure because the nice and shiny parts of Rust assume them.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Hmm. So I guess it comes down to what OP is doing. They either want to write a Rust library, or something that uses a Rust library that may not be standardised or even exist yet. If the latter, they should stick with C.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Writing C bindings to a Rust library is the easier scenario because you can rely on the safe code having nice and clean memory semantics.