20

I'm just asking why Rust decided to use &str for string literals instead of String. Isn't it possible for Rust to just automatically convert a string literal to a String and put it on the heap instead of putting it into the stack?

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    Theoretically, sure. But it would be waaaaay slower and what would be the advantage? Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 5:05
  • 4
    "put it on the heap instead of putting it into the stack", I guess string literals are placed to the ro.data section. Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 5:54
  • 3
    Re: the close vote, I don't agree that this question leads to opinion-based answers. There are very clear reasons for the design. Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 10:36

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
23

To understand the reasoning, consider that Rust wants to be a systems programming language. In general, this means that it needs to be (among other things) (a) as efficient as possible and (b) give the programmer full control over allocations and deallocations of heap memory. One use case for Rust is for embedded programming where memory is very limited.

Therefore, Rust does not want to allocate heap memory where this is not strictly necessary. String literals are known at compile time and can be written into the ro.data section of an executable/library, so they don't consume stack or heap space.

Now, given that Rust does not want to allocate the values on the heap, it is basically forced to treat string literals as &str: Strings own their values and can be moved and dropped, but how do you drop a value that is in ro.data? You can't really do that, so &str is the perfect fit.

Furthermore, treating string literals as &str (or, more accurately &'static str) has all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. They can be used in multiple places, can be shared without worrying about using heap memory and never have to be deleted. Also, they can be converted to owned Strings at will, so having them available as String is always possible, but you only pay the cost when you need to.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

6 Comments

Why is it a problem that the value in ro.data cannot be dropped? Could Rust just pretend it is dropped and carry on or would that cause problems? (Edit: I'm actually wondering why str exists at all, and string literals seem to be an important part of the answer.)
The problem is that String owns the data and drops that data when it is dropped itself. It might be possible to check if the data it owns is in ro.data (though it might also be difficult cross platform) and then avoid the drop, but its making the implementation much more complicated. The types String and str have their equivalent in Vec<T> and [T]. With rust's model of ownership and shared references you really need something like &str, not just because of string literals.
Also, consider that String owns and can modify its data, not really something you want to do with a string literal / thing in ro.data.
Thanks @Paul. I didn't know that even a non-mut String has to assume its data is writable (because it can be made mut by its owner). And string literals have to be read-only for performance reasons (because then they can stay in ro.data). So there have to be two types to represent strings.
Hi, I am a newbie. You said string literals has none of the disadvantages. Regarding reverse engineering the rust code, will string literals lead to easier to do reverse enginneering than String? I don't really know much about reverse engineering too, but I always want the program to be harder to reverse engineer.
|
11

To create a String, you have to:

  • reserve a place on the heap (allocate), and
  • copy the desired content from a read-only location to the freshly allocated area.

If a string literal like "foo" did both, every string would effectively be allocated twice: once inside the executable as the read-only string, and the other time on the heap. You simply couldn't just refer to the original read-only data stored in the executable.

&str literals give you access to the most efficient string data: the one present in the executable image on startup, put there by the compiler along with the instructions that make up the program. The data it points to is not stored on the stack, what is stack-allocated is just the pointer/size pair, as is the case with any Rust slice.

Making "foo" desugar into what is now spelled "foo".to_owned() would make it slower and less space-efficient, and would likely require another syntax to get a non-allocating &str. After all, you don't want x == "foo" to allocate a string just to throw it away immediately. Languages like Python alleviate this by making their strings immutable, which allows them to cache strings mentioned in the source code. In Rust mutating String is often the whole point of creating it, so that strategy wouldn't work.

Improve this answer

7 Comments

"You simply couldn't just refer to the original read-only data stored in the executable." Why not? I would assume that to be possible as long as the String is not mut. And if the data is to be mutated, then it has to be copied anyway. So it seems that either way using a String should work without penalty. What am I missing?
@BlackShift Why not? - Because String is guaranteed to refer to heap-allocated data. You can even convert it to Box<str> and Vec<u8> without reallocation. I would assume that to be possible as long as the String is not mut. - there is no such thing as a non-mut String - as long as you own it, you can always make it mut.
Thank you @user4815162342. I did not know that you can make immutable variables mutable. I guess it makes sense, because an important reason for immutability/consts is to ensure that different parts of a program do not mangle data that other parts rely on. Rust solves that already.
let mut s = s reuses the same memory location, so it indeed effectively makes the original String mut (instead of e.g. copying the data). So things will break if the non-mut String could refer to read-only data, something I didn't expect, thanks again.
Yeah I figured that must be what was going on, so I wanted to proof it (and share the proof here for future readers).
|

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.