m04-zero-cost

Original🇺🇸 English
Not Translated

CRITICAL: Use for generics, traits, zero-cost abstraction. Triggers: E0277, E0308, E0599, generic, trait, impl, dyn, where, monomorphization, static dispatch, dynamic dispatch, impl Trait, trait bound not satisfied, 泛型, 特征, 零成本抽象, 单态化

3installs
Added on

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add actionbook/rust-skills m04-zero-cost

SKILL.md Content

Zero-Cost Abstraction

Layer 1: Language Mechanics

Core Question

Do we need compile-time or runtime polymorphism?
Before choosing between generics and trait objects:
  • Is the type known at compile time?
  • Is a heterogeneous collection needed?
  • What's the performance priority?

Error → Design Question

ErrorDon't Just SayAsk Instead
E0277"Add trait bound"Is this abstraction at the right level?
E0308"Fix the type"Should types be unified or distinct?
E0599"Import the trait"Is the trait the right abstraction?
E0038"Make object-safe"Do we really need dynamic dispatch?

Thinking Prompt

Before adding trait bounds:
  1. What abstraction is needed?
    • Same behavior, different types → trait
    • Different behavior, same type → enum
    • No abstraction needed → concrete type
  2. When is type known?
    • Compile time → generics (static dispatch)
    • Runtime → trait objects (dynamic dispatch)
  3. What's the trade-off priority?
    • Performance → generics
    • Compile time → trait objects
    • Flexibility → depends

Trace Up ↑

When type system fights back:
E0277 (trait bound not satisfied)
    ↑ Ask: Is the abstraction level correct?
    ↑ Check: m09-domain (what behavior is being abstracted?)
    ↑ Check: m05-type-driven (should use newtype?)
Persistent ErrorTrace ToQuestion
Complex trait boundsm09-domainIs the abstraction right?
Object safety issuesm05-type-drivenCan typestate help?
Type explosionm10-performanceAccept dyn overhead?

Trace Down ↓

From design to implementation:
"Need to abstract over types with same behavior"
    ↓ Types known at compile time → impl Trait or generics
    ↓ Types determined at runtime → dyn Trait

"Need collection of different types"
    ↓ Closed set → enum
    ↓ Open set → Vec<Box<dyn Trait>>

"Need to return different types"
    ↓ Same type → impl Trait
    ↓ Different types → Box<dyn Trait>

Quick Reference

PatternDispatchCode SizeRuntime Cost
fn foo<T: Trait>()
Static+bloatZero
fn foo(x: &dyn Trait)
DynamicMinimalvtable lookup
impl Trait
return
Static+bloatZero
Box<dyn Trait>
DynamicMinimalAllocation + vtable

Syntax Comparison

rust
// Static dispatch - type known at compile time
fn process(x: impl Display) { }      // argument position
fn process<T: Display>(x: T) { }     // explicit generic
fn get() -> impl Display { }         // return position

// Dynamic dispatch - type determined at runtime
fn process(x: &dyn Display) { }      // reference
fn process(x: Box<dyn Display>) { }  // owned

Error Code Reference

ErrorCauseQuick Fix
E0277Type doesn't impl traitAdd impl or change bound
E0308Type mismatchCheck generic params
E0599No method foundImport trait with
use
E0038Trait not object-safeUse generics or redesign

Decision Guide

ScenarioChooseWhy
Performance criticalGenericsZero runtime cost
Heterogeneous collection
dyn Trait
Different types at runtime
Plugin architecture
dyn Trait
Unknown types at compile
Reduce compile time
dyn Trait
Less monomorphization
Small, known type set
enum
No indirection

Object Safety

A trait is object-safe if it:
  • Doesn't have
    Self: Sized
    bound
  • Doesn't return
    Self
  • Doesn't have generic methods
  • Uses
    where Self: Sized
    for non-object-safe methods

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy BadBetter
Over-generic everythingCompile time, complexityConcrete types when possible
dyn
for known types
Unnecessary indirectionGenerics
Complex trait hierarchiesHard to understandSimpler design
Ignore object safetyLimits flexibilityPlan for dyn if needed

Related Skills

WhenSee
Type-driven designm05-type-driven
Domain abstractionm09-domain
Performance concernsm10-performance
Send/Sync boundsm07-concurrency