4 ms·

Yeah, this is a trivial example. It becomes trickier when you start dealing with things across library boundaries where you might not have source code. I've se

Yeah, this is a trivial example. It becomes trickier when you start dealing with things across library boundaries where you might not have source code. I've seen 5 minute fixes and things that took weeks to track down(yay for non deterministic repros).

pjmlp 10y ago
Back when I was doing C coding in the early 2000's I have spent around one week tracking down a server crash caused by a bad pointer. Technical support guys were not that happy with the customer regularly calling them to know when the fix would be delivered. Have other war stories about tracking down leaks as well.
Const-me 10y ago
It’s hard to debug a library without the source code. This is irrelevant to what language was that source code in, C++ or Rust.
- vvanders 10y ago
  Yeah but we're talking about lifetime bugs here. In the case of Rust they are encoded in the function signature so you don't have to rely on convention or documentation.
  - Const-me 10y ago
    In most cases you have the source code you’re building. Combined with some stuff in C runtime, this pinpoints the C++ problem nearly as accurately as Rust’s compiler would. Most commercial libraries are written in C or C++. The reasons include performance, smaller runtime, and ease of use (all OS kernels are written in C, so the majority of languages already feature decent C interop). Even if you code Rust, you won’t have that compile-time checks inside proprietary third-party libraries.
    - vvanders 10y ago
      So if I can summarize: If you don't use Rust you won't see the benefits of Rust? ;) FWIW it's getting pretty common in the Rust ecosystem to wrap 3rd party libs with proper lifetime annotations with opaque types when possible. Things like OpenGL, JNI bindings and whatnot can still benefit from lifetime annotations the compiler provides.
      - Const-me 10y ago
        I’d summarize in a different way. Rust proponents often overestimate practical impart of those C++ safely problems fixed by Rust. At the same time, they often underestimate or ignore Rust’s problems caused by the same safety thing. The main of which is, it’s hard to implement some widely used data structures in Rust. Here’s my old thread where I discuss the topic in details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977247

pjmlp 10y ago

Back when I was doing C coding in the early 2000's I have spent around one week tracking down a server crash caused by a bad pointer. Technical support guys were not that happy with the customer regularly calling them to know when the fix would be delivered. Have other war stories about tracking down leaks as well.

Const-me 10y ago

It’s hard to debug a library without the source code. This is irrelevant to what language was that source code in, C++ or Rust.

vvanders 10y ago
Yeah but we're talking about lifetime bugs here. In the case of Rust they are encoded in the function signature so you don't have to rely on convention or documentation.
- Const-me 10y ago
  In most cases you have the source code you’re building. Combined with some stuff in C runtime, this pinpoints the C++ problem nearly as accurately as Rust’s compiler would. Most commercial libraries are written in C or C++. The reasons include performance, smaller runtime, and ease of use (all OS kernels are written in C, so the majority of languages already feature decent C interop). Even if you code Rust, you won’t have that compile-time checks inside proprietary third-party libraries.
  - vvanders 10y ago
    So if I can summarize: If you don't use Rust you won't see the benefits of Rust? ;) FWIW it's getting pretty common in the Rust ecosystem to wrap 3rd party libs with proper lifetime annotations with opaque types when possible. Things like OpenGL, JNI bindings and whatnot can still benefit from lifetime annotations the compiler provides.
    - Const-me 10y ago
      I’d summarize in a different way. Rust proponents often overestimate practical impart of those C++ safely problems fixed by Rust. At the same time, they often underestimate or ignore Rust’s problems caused by the same safety thing. The main of which is, it’s hard to implement some widely used data structures in Rust. Here’s my old thread where I discuss the topic in details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977247