Variables and memory management in Rust

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes, 44 seconds
April 17, 2020

Lately there has been a lot of fuss around the Rust programming language developed by the Mozilla team around 2010.

The reality is that this language that was created as an alternative to C++ has gained popularity once it has become more mature, due to the following key features:

  • Safety
  • Great performance
  • Packaging and distribution
  • Helpful community

The objective of this post is to learn more about how Rust handles variables and memory to catch errors at compile time rather than in runtime. This is one of the features that makes it the safe language of choice for critical applications.

Rust applies a concept called: linear types. This means that is based on a linear logic that ensures that objects are only used once and then safely removed or deallocated.

Linear type systems allow references but not aliases. In Rust variables are immutable by default, therefore the following code triggers a compile error

fn main() {
    let x = 5;
    println!("The value of x is: {}", x);
    x = 6;
    println!("The value of x is: {}", x);

If you really need to modify a variable once a value has been assigned to it, you must specify it this way:

fn main() {
    let mut x = 5;
    println!("The value of x is: {}", x);
    x = 6;
    println!("The value of x is: {}", x);

Now, you must be wondering why immutability should be a de-facto feature and how this may contribute to a produce a safer code.

Then you should understand another Rust concept in memory management: Ownership.

Understanding Ownership

Rust does not have a garbage collector like Java or other languages. Its philosophy is based on the premise that whoever declares a variable should own it until the end of the flow. But before digging into this concept, we need to refresh a few old concepts about memory: stack and heap.

Even when stack and heap are memory spaces available to be used during runtime, their structure differs. Stack works in a LIFO (last in, first out) fashion, meaning it stores values in the order it arrive and remove them in the opposite order.

The most important concept about stack is that all data stored there must have a known, fixed size. If we don´t know the size of what we are going to store, then we should use the heap.

Heap is less organized and whenever you need to put data on the heap, you request a certain amount of space, the operating system finds an empty spot that could fit and returns a pointer, which holds the address of that location in memory. This process is called allocating.

Pushing values onto the stack is not considered allocating since the reserved space for data is known before hand. Thus, using the stack is faster than allocating on the heap because the operating system does not have to search for a new place to store data. Data in the stack is always on top.

When a function is called, the values passed into the function as well as the function's local variables get pushed onto the stack. When the function is over, those values get removed from the stack.

Now, historically the main problem with languages that allow developers to allocate data in the heap (using pointers), was keeping track of what parts of code are using what data on the heap and the deallocation of unused data from the heap. This is what the Rust concept of ownership attempts to solve.

Each value in Rust has a variable that could be seen as its owner and each variable can have one owner at a time. Whenever the owner goes out of scope, the value is gone.

Let's see the following example:

let s = String::from("hello");

Here we are using a variable that points to a String structure in memory. The string structure is allocated in the heap area and s1 is a variable that has information about the address of the String structure, its length and capacity.

Now, the s variable is immutable by default, so if we wanted to modify the String data, we should do this:

let mut s = String::from("hello");

s.push_str(", world!"); // push_str() appends a literal to a String

println!("{}", s); // This

The mut keyword lets Rust know about the variable mutability.

Now, here comes the interesting part about ownership, let's take a look at the following code:

let s1 = String::from("hello");
let s2 = s1;

In this case, s1 is assigned to s2, therefore if we think of other languages like C++, both s2 and s1 would be pointing to the same structure. So, after the assignment in the same function I should be able to do this:

println!("{}, world!", s1);

However this code fails in Rust because once s1 has been assigned to s2, s1 does not belong the owner so it is not longer valid. This is what ownership is about. This way, Rust does not have to worry about keeping track of scenarios where the structure is removed from s2 and s1 may remain orfan.

At this point you may ask, is there then a way to actually deep copy structures and make s1 and s2 point to a valid structure with the a replicated data? The answer is yes by using a function called clone.

let s1 = String::from("hello");
let s2 = s1.clone();

So far so good, we know how ownership works in Rust but what about functions? In order to understand this, let's look at the following example:

fn main() {
    let s1 = String::from("hello");
    let s2 = takes_ownership(s1);

    println!("s1 '{}'.", s1); //not ok
    println!("s2 '{}'.", s2); //ok

fn takes_ownership(st: String) -> String {

Here, s1 is passed as parameter to the takeownership_ function. Unlike other languages where functions naturally make a copy of parameter into an local variable, Rust keeps clinging to its rules and s1 once it is passed to takesownership_ function, so it stops existing within the main() function scope.

Now, what if we actually need to borrow ownership? Then we should pass a reference to the variable like this:

fn main() {
    let s1 = String::from("hello");

    let len = calculate_length(&s1);

    println!("The length of '{}' is {}.", s1, len);

fn calculate_length(s: &String) -> usize {

Here, we are passing a reference of s1, then s and s1 points to the same structure. Semantics is important here because &s1 lets us create a reference to the value of s1 but does not own it. This is a very important distinction because the actual value of s1 will only be dropped after the real owner from the main() scope, stops using it.

The &s1 syntax lets us create a reference that refers to the value of s1 but does not own it. Because it does not own it, the value it points to will not be dropped when the reference goes out of scope.

We cannot modify the String structure from within the calculatelength()_ function because we borrowed s1, we don´t own it.

Now, what if we need to modify the String owned by s1 and we want to continue to let s1 as owner of the struct in the main() function?

For this case we have something called Mutable References.

fn main() {
    let mut s = String::from("hello");

    change(&mut s);

fn change(some_string: &mut String) {
    some_string.push_str(", world");

Using mut this way does the trick but there is only one caveat, for security reasons you can only use mutable references only once in a particular scope for a particular piece of data.

Therefore, something like this will fail:

let mut s = String::from("hello");

let r1 = &mut s;
let r2 = &mut s;

println!("{}, {}", r1, r2);


Any number of immutable references or one mutable reference can exist at any time of your code. However, references must always be valid.

Notice: The objective of this post was to find another way to explain how variables are handled by Rust, therefore most of the source code examples here have been borrowed from the official Rust website documentation.