I’m not sure why it’s counterintuitive that &str and String are different things...

dezgeg · 2025-05-14T07:54:58 1747209298

Better analogy is std::string_view vs std::string

umanwizard · 2025-05-14T16:30:42 1747240242

Technically that's a bit closer, yes, but way more people have heard of char* than string_view, and char* is similar _enough_ to &str that the analogy still works.

scotty79 · 2025-05-14T09:20:54 1747214454

Nah. &str is const char* exactly. It's as primitive as types in rust get.

tuetuopay · 2025-05-14T11:39:11 1747222751

Nope. `&str` includes the length of the slice, which `const char*` does not. `std::string_view` is the proper analogy.

umanwizard · 2025-05-14T18:41:37 1747248097

Another difference is that &str is guaranteed to be utf-8, whereas const char* can be any encoding (or no encoding).

pdpi · 2025-05-14T22:19:43 1747261183

Also, &str is closer to const uint8_t* than it is to const char*. Chars are signed by default and are at least 8 bits, but can be wider.