• ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    not the IDE, its the compiler. this is also not some AI shit, in many cases (not all) the compiler can actually figure out how to do this, because it’s not hard, it would just be a lot of boilerplate if written manually.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Why did you even bring up AI? IDEs have been able to generate equality functions for decades without AI.

      It’s kinda neat to have this defined directly in the language so that compilers can implement it, but creating equality function is so low effort that this doesn’t really seem like a big deal.

      Like, you define the members in a class, then you tell your IDE to generate getters, constructor, equals, hashcode, etc all in like 5 seconds.
      I like it, it’s nice when the language itself defines reasonable defaults for things, but realistically you’re saving yourself a few seconds of effort.

      • Mia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yeah but if the class changes you need to update everything, you got all that boilerplate taking up space for no real reason, etc…

        The Rust way’s just a lot cleaner imo.

      • words_number@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Isn’t it obvious? More code to skim, scroll over and maintain if something changes. If you add a struct field, your manual EQ implementation still compiles and seems to work but is wrong and will lead to bugs. Yes, solving this for 99,999% of cases with an attribute is just far superior and does make a difference (while keeping it easy to manually implement it if needed). Hash and Ord and some other traits can be implemented in a similar fashion btw…