4 ms·

That is a fault of the programmer, not C. Sure, having those things in rust is nice but, my point about the above line is, he's talking out of both sides of his

That is a fault of the programmer, not C. Sure, having those things in rust is nice but, my point about the above line is, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth (with all due respect). I don't want to come across as dissing rust. I've only tinkered with it and liked the parts I saw but feel some of his comments are misplaced. EDIT: Obviously no one gets my point after twice explaining, that he's complaining about badly written code by bad programmers as his reason for dissing C, so I'll refrain from commenting anymore.

Sharlin 9y ago
The point is, there cannot exist the same sort of terrible Rust code as the terrible C code he complains about. Because the compiler won't let you do it. With C you can write code that you don't understand is bad and broken because the compiler happily obliges and the program may even seem to work fine. With Rust you cannot because you're immediately told that the code is problematic (when it comes to memory safety. Of course there are other ways to write bad unmaintainable Rust code.)
- masklinn 9y ago
  There kinda can in the sense that you could just make every function `unsafe`, but that's a bit of a giant blinking red flag.
  - internetionals 9y ago
    And even then it will warn in many situations. Unsafe does not suddenly make everything okay, it only allows 3 specific things that are otherwise not allowed.
    - masklinn 9y ago
      Yes, but through these it does let you break the language by creating invalid values (and thus trigger wide-ranging UBs).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
empath75 9y ago
It seems to me that if you already know how to write correct C code, then the 'difficult' parts of Rust should be easy for you, and you'll find the compiler mostly just points out potentially dangerous things that you might have missed every once in a while.
imtringued 9y ago
Yes that's the damn problem with C. You can the best programmer on the entire planet and then suddenly your skills become completely worthless because you have to work on broken code that you didn't write. Of course people will write broken code in Java, safe Rust, Javascript. Fortunately the consequence of broken code in these languages is restricted to the application with the broken code. Broken C code threatens your entire computer.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > Broken C code threatens your entire computer. As does broken hardware.
  - jabot 9y ago
    Yes, but hardware is easier to replace...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
pjmlp 9y ago
Apparently it is a known issue since 1979, yet it keeps being ignored. > To encourage people to pay more attention to the official language rules, to detect legal but suspicious constructions, and to help find interface mismatches undetectable with simple mechanisms for separate compilation, Steve Johnson adapted his pcc compiler to produce lint [Johnson 79b], which scanned a set of files and remarked on dubious constructions. -- Dennis M. Ritchie https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html Any feature that is outsourced to an external tool, has a very high probability of being ignored, and as such, yes it is a failure of the language's design.
vardump 9y ago
> That is a fault of the programmer, not C. Sure, having those things in rust is nice but, my point about the above line is, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth (with all due respect). The problem is, that at least 99% of C-programmers aren't good enough to use C. Seriously. If you had a vehicle model that causes 99% of drivers to crash, wouldn't you say there's a problem with the vehicle rather than with the drivers? We have now 40 years worth of proof that C is simply too difficult language to master in general case. Isn't that already enough? I use C daily and have about 20 years of experience, but still don't consider myself to be good enough to use it. There was a time in the past when I did think I mastered it, but I was a fool back then. This is not to say my code doesn't work; it does. It just sometimes has some weird edge cases compilers and static analysis didn't catch. This is very bad in the era of network connected computers, because those edge cases are and will be actively exploited.
Hemospectrum 9y ago
> That is a fault of the programmer, not C. It's common to hear this line from the C fandom, and very rare to hear a serious proposal for what to do with all this Bad Code written by Bad Programmers. The status quo is to rewrite the former from scratch, and totally ignore the latter in the hopes that they'll be magically pulled down to hell and have their hands burned off by daemons. As far as I know, that part doesn't actually happen. Instead, they just keep writing more Bad Code, and meanwhile the rewrites are just as liable to cause problems as whatever they replaced, because often as not, the people doing the rewrites also turn out to be Bad Programmers. If pressed for actionable solutions, C advocates will sometimes mention tooling such as Valgrind and ASAN, as if merely having it exist guarantees that all C programmers are educated in its use and make it a part of their workflow. This clearly isn't the case. New programmers are still learning C from material written before such tooling existed. Old programmers are still recommending it. There's no path for Bad Programmers to become Good Programmers, except to be admonished in public to Stop Writing Bad Code. Ultimately, I agree with you: The issue here isn't with the C language. It's with the people who use it. Their priorities do not include concerns like memory safety, and their normal response to questions of code quality is to make it somebody else's problem. If the culture of the community were to change, I expect the language would follow.
- jejones3141 9y ago
  Yes, and even more so for C++ than C.
topspin 9y ago
>> Obviously no one gets my point after twice explaining Actually we do. We're just not indulging your point. It's the same point that has plagued every new tool and technique that has ever emerged; "we don't need this, the exiting tools are fine, just be a better programmer." "See? If you just program better you wouldn't need this pointless such and such." I suspect this mentality is found in every field of endeavour. The world you envision, where world class programmers write and maintain flawless code and everyone else stays home, is fictional. It has never been and it will never be. Thus we pursue tools to improve the state of the art despite the lack of exclusively world class programmers. Maybe Rust is one of the right answers. Maybe not. I don't know. I just know that most of us are straight up done putting up with people that insist the pursuit of better tools is somehow misguided. Figure that out and you'll do better.

Sharlin 9y ago

The point is, there cannot exist the same sort of terrible Rust code as the terrible C code he complains about. Because the compiler won't let you do it. With C you can write code that you don't understand is bad and broken because the compiler happily obliges and the program may even seem to work fine. With Rust you cannot because you're immediately told that the code is problematic (when it comes to memory safety. Of course there are other ways to write bad unmaintainable Rust code.)

masklinn 9y ago
There kinda can in the sense that you could just make every function `unsafe`, but that's a bit of a giant blinking red flag.
- internetionals 9y ago
  And even then it will warn in many situations. Unsafe does not suddenly make everything okay, it only allows 3 specific things that are otherwise not allowed.
  - masklinn 9y ago
    Yes, but through these it does let you break the language by creating invalid values (and thus trigger wide-ranging UBs).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

empath75 9y ago

It seems to me that if you already know how to write correct C code, then the 'difficult' parts of Rust should be easy for you, and you'll find the compiler mostly just points out potentially dangerous things that you might have missed every once in a while.

imtringued 9y ago

Yes that's the damn problem with C. You can the best programmer on the entire planet and then suddenly your skills become completely worthless because you have to work on broken code that you didn't write. Of course people will write broken code in Java, safe Rust, Javascript. Fortunately the consequence of broken code in these languages is restricted to the application with the broken code. Broken C code threatens your entire computer.

jacquesm 9y ago
> Broken C code threatens your entire computer. As does broken hardware.
- jabot 9y ago
  Yes, but hardware is easier to replace...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

pjmlp 9y ago

Apparently it is a known issue since 1979, yet it keeps being ignored. > To encourage people to pay more attention to the official language rules, to detect legal but suspicious constructions, and to help find interface mismatches undetectable with simple mechanisms for separate compilation, Steve Johnson adapted his pcc compiler to produce lint [Johnson 79b], which scanned a set of files and remarked on dubious constructions. -- Dennis M. Ritchie https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html Any feature that is outsourced to an external tool, has a very high probability of being ignored, and as such, yes it is a failure of the language's design.

vardump 9y ago

> That is a fault of the programmer, not C. Sure, having those things in rust is nice but, my point about the above line is, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth (with all due respect). The problem is, that at least 99% of C-programmers aren't good enough to use C. Seriously. If you had a vehicle model that causes 99% of drivers to crash, wouldn't you say there's a problem with the vehicle rather than with the drivers? We have now 40 years worth of proof that C is simply too difficult language to master in general case. Isn't that already enough? I use C daily and have about 20 years of experience, but still don't consider myself to be good enough to use it. There was a time in the past when I did think I mastered it, but I was a fool back then. This is not to say my code doesn't work; it does. It just sometimes has some weird edge cases compilers and static analysis didn't catch. This is very bad in the era of network connected computers, because those edge cases are and will be actively exploited.

Hemospectrum 9y ago

> That is a fault of the programmer, not C. It's common to hear this line from the C fandom, and very rare to hear a serious proposal for what to do with all this Bad Code written by Bad Programmers. The status quo is to rewrite the former from scratch, and totally ignore the latter in the hopes that they'll be magically pulled down to hell and have their hands burned off by daemons. As far as I know, that part doesn't actually happen. Instead, they just keep writing more Bad Code, and meanwhile the rewrites are just as liable to cause problems as whatever they replaced, because often as not, the people doing the rewrites also turn out to be Bad Programmers. If pressed for actionable solutions, C advocates will sometimes mention tooling such as Valgrind and ASAN, as if merely having it exist guarantees that all C programmers are educated in its use and make it a part of their workflow. This clearly isn't the case. New programmers are still learning C from material written before such tooling existed. Old programmers are still recommending it. There's no path for Bad Programmers to become Good Programmers, except to be admonished in public to Stop Writing Bad Code. Ultimately, I agree with you: The issue here isn't with the C language. It's with the people who use it. Their priorities do not include concerns like memory safety, and their normal response to questions of code quality is to make it somebody else's problem. If the culture of the community were to change, I expect the language would follow.

jejones3141 9y ago
Yes, and even more so for C++ than C.

topspin 9y ago

>> Obviously no one gets my point after twice explaining Actually we do. We're just not indulging your point. It's the same point that has plagued every new tool and technique that has ever emerged; "we don't need this, the exiting tools are fine, just be a better programmer." "See? If you just program better you wouldn't need this pointless such and such." I suspect this mentality is found in every field of endeavour. The world you envision, where world class programmers write and maintain flawless code and everyone else stays home, is fictional. It has never been and it will never be. Thus we pursue tools to improve the state of the art despite the lack of exclusively world class programmers. Maybe Rust is one of the right answers. Maybe not. I don't know. I just know that most of us are straight up done putting up with people that insist the pursuit of better tools is somehow misguided. Figure that out and you'll do better.