5 ms·
I feel you're missing my point. The article doesn't mention rust but my comment was phrased in the context of the current rust craze on HN. As I said, I agree
by ccommsxx 9y ago
I feel you're missing my point. The article doesn't mention rust but my comment was phrased in the context of the current rust craze on HN.
As I said, I agree with you and the author that all of us do inevitably make mistakes. I also agree that the c-family of languages makes it somewhat more easy to shoot yourself in the foot in a bad way than others. I'm not saying innovation on safe languages is bad, or that using safe languages is bad.
My disagreement with you and the sibling is probably on the point of whether one can learn something useful about the limitations and pitfalls of c-family languages by reading a single-page all-opinion post about it. You and the sibling appear to believe so, I do not. I don't think we will come to a complete agreement on this, but I certainly understand and respect your and sibling's view.
- skybrian 9y agoThere's a broader question of when to investigate a technology yourself versus learning from others. A new programmer could spend ten years programming in [some language] or they could learn from other people to avoid it, and possibly save themselves a lot of time. Yes, that means you're just following the bandwagon, but sometimes that's efficient. I would share the link, though, rather than making my own assertions, and be open to other arguments from more experienced people.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 9y agoThe main issue I have found out during all these years of advocating safe practices in C and C++, specially among C developers given that the C++ community does care about type safe programming, is that they land in deaf hears. Currently, writing blog articles re-explained what is bad and should be avoid seem a waste of effort, given that even respectable researchers like DJB get ignored.