3 ms·

There might be an easy solution, they could provide more flexibility on using safety features, kind of like Perl did it, i.e. let anyone disable/enable a partic

• rubber_duck 10y ago
  They have that with the "unsafe" blocks but like I said promoting it as something you should use when things don't fit borrow-checker goes against their primary goal of making things safe. I guess there are two camps, one that wants compile time safety guarantees - those people made Rust, and the other wants a C++ replacement with modern tooling and no legacy garbage - those are looking at Rust and getting discouraged by safety trade offs they are paying but not really caring for - and every Rust tutorial I've seen focuses on hammering this aspect instead of going "OK here is the equivalent of this C++ code with unsafe code - you now get a sane build system, package manager, modules, fancy syntax. Now if you want here's how to make it safe."
  • vertex-four 10y ago
    You're almost certainly not looking for Rust if you don't want your language to prevent a vast variety of bugs, and instead want something that allows and encourages you to design systems which make it easy to shoot yourself in the foot (which all C++ codebases I've ever seen have grown). I don't think language developers are interested in making such a language in general, as it's not interesting - you'd just be rehashing ideas from multiple decades ago with new syntax, and not making anything particularly easier to do.
    • rubber_duck 10y ago
      >and not making anything particularly easier to do Have you used C++ in the real world ? Dealt with it's insane build systems, build times, obscure semantics, etc. ? Not to mention there's nothing close to a sane package manager. There's plenty of value of just rehashing the lessons learned in last 20 years of language design to a systems language.
    • shadowmint 10y ago
      I don't think language developers are interested in making such a language in general... https://inductive.no/jai/ https://inductive.no/jai/ :P I'd argue go came from a desire to have a language that was completely uninteresting in terms of 'interesting ideas', and really just exists to Get Stuff Done. I think more people are interested in that sort of thing than you imagine. Clearly.
      • AsyncAwait 10y ago
        Jai is designed on a bunch of false assumptions, which makes it hard to get excited about. Or more precisely, the designer of Jai uses C++ as "C with classes" and then goes from that, which isn't fair. He also misrepresented a few things in regards to Rust, which he doesn't even know, but comments on etc. etc.
  • zzzcpan 10y ago
    As I understand it, you can't disable just borrow checker somewhere where you don't need it.
    • steveklabnik 10y ago
      It's subtle. Unsafe Rust is a superset of safe Rust; that is, all valid safe Rust code is valid unsafe Rust code. fn foo() { unsafe { let x = &5; // this is still going to get borrow checked } } Since it's a superset, it gives you access to new tools, that don't interact with the borrow checker, rather than "turning the borrow checker off". fn foo() { unsafe { let x = *const 5; // this is not going to get borrow checked } }
      • dbaupp 10y ago
        (*const is not valid syntax: the way to not-borrow something is to coerce/cast it to an unsafe pointer within the statement, so that the borrow ends at the ;, e.g. give x an explicit raw pointer type in the first example.)
        • steveklabnik 10y ago
          gah, i always mess this up, haha