5 ms·

C and C++ have plenty of analogous checks- debug assertions in the standard library, runtime checks for uninitialized memory, sanitizers, etc. Do we have an ide

by Rusky 7y ago

C and C++ have plenty of analogous checks- debug assertions in the standard library, runtime checks for uninitialized memory, sanitizers, etc. Do we have an idea how effective they are there? Do we have reason to expect Zig's to be any better? In fact, Rust approaches most of these particular problems the same way- arithmetic overflow, array bounds checking, stack overflow handling, etc. are all checked at runtime. Rust's language complexity is dedicated to things that Zig simply doesn't check, and that C and C++ have checked only recently. This goes back to a previous conversation of ours[1]- Rust's complexity is allocated very differently than C++'s. It has many of the same advantages as Zig (if not more) when it comes to understanding and code review. Painting Rust's static analysis and associated language complexity as an alternative to C/C++/Zig-style runtime checks looks like a category error to me. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/eehe6t/a_backwards_introduction_to_rust_starting_with/fbv1h3u/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/eehe6t/a_backw...

pron 7y ago
> C and C++ have plenty of analogous checks- debug assertions in the standard library, runtime checks for uninitialized memory, sanitizers, etc. Do we have an idea how effective they are there? Do we have reason to expect Zig's to be any better? Yes. Take a look at some of the checks Zig has. > Rust's language complexity is dedicated to things that Zig simply doesn't check, and that C and C++ have checked only recently. Right, but that doesn't mean it leads to more correct programs when this "checking" comes at a cost. > It has many of the same advantages as Zig (if not more) when it comes to understanding and code review. That's a matter of taste. Those who like complex languages like, say, C++ or Scala, can certainly prefer them, but I think they're in the minority. Zig is a very simple language, while only C++ and Scala contend to be as complex as Rust or more. > Painting Rust's static analysis and associated language complexity as an alternative to C/C++/Zig-style runtime checks looks like a category error to me. If you, like me, don't particularly like complex languages, then the complexity has a cost. What does it buy you? It buys you certain sound guarantees about lack of UB is safe code, which hopefully helps write more correct programs. If you have an alternative to achieving a similar level of correctness with a much simpler language, I would very much prefer that.
- Rusky 7y ago
  > Take a look at some of the checks Zig has. I did, to make sure I wasn't missing something. There's nothing new there, and some things are missing. (This is not bad, Zig is still in development, but it's not exactly a new approach either.) > only C++ and Scala contend to be as complex as Rust or more. ... If you, like me, don't particularly like complex languages, then the complexity has a cost. This is why I linked our Reddit conversation- Rust is nowhere near as complex as C++, and its particular complexity's costs are not difficulty in reading or code review. > If you have an alternative to achieving a similar level of correctness with a much simpler language, I would very much prefer that. But this is exactly my point- I don't believe Zig is such an alternative! Zig and Rust both improve over C and C++'s complexity and readability, leading to some general correctness improvements; so far only Rust does anything different to address memory safety.
  - pron 7y ago
    > There's nothing new there, and some things are missing. And it still goes further than C sanitizers (except the glaring missing piece of use-after-free, which I'm sure will be addressed). > Rust is nowhere near as complex as C++ It's hard to quantify this, but I think few people would point at any language (in real use) other than Scala, C++ and Ada as being as or more complex than Rust, so it's at the very top. Some people are perfectly OK with that and even prefer such languages. Rust is well beyond my language complexity comfort level (even C# is too complex for my taste, and, as a high-level language it offer much better abstraction than Rust, or any low-level language). So if C++ is at 500 and Rust is at 300, that doesn't mean much if I want to be at 50 or 100. > Zig and Rust both improve over C and C++'s complexity and readability I don't see it this way. I find it hard to put C and Zig in the same category as Rust. > so far only Rust does anything different to address memory safety. I disagree with that, too. Rust is the only one that addresses memory safety using sound guarantees. If you run tests on a Zig program out of the box you won't have array overflows; that's not what you get in C and C++. Zig's "big idea" or "doing anything different" is how it does partial evaluation with a single construct (comptime) that is drastically simpler than anything I've seen. In other words, as far as simplifying languages with tough requirements for low-level programming, it's rather revolutionary. That's my preferred direction for programming languages.

by Rusky 7y ago

pron 7y ago

> C and C++ have plenty of analogous checks- debug assertions in the standard library, runtime checks for uninitialized memory, sanitizers, etc. Do we have an idea how effective they are there? Do we have reason to expect Zig's to be any better? Yes. Take a look at some of the checks Zig has. > Rust's language complexity is dedicated to things that Zig simply doesn't check, and that C and C++ have checked only recently. Right, but that doesn't mean it leads to more correct programs when this "checking" comes at a cost. > It has many of the same advantages as Zig (if not more) when it comes to understanding and code review. That's a matter of taste. Those who like complex languages like, say, C++ or Scala, can certainly prefer them, but I think they're in the minority. Zig is a very simple language, while only C++ and Scala contend to be as complex as Rust or more. > Painting Rust's static analysis and associated language complexity as an alternative to C/C++/Zig-style runtime checks looks like a category error to me. If you, like me, don't particularly like complex languages, then the complexity has a cost. What does it buy you? It buys you certain sound guarantees about lack of UB is safe code, which hopefully helps write more correct programs. If you have an alternative to achieving a similar level of correctness with a much simpler language, I would very much prefer that.

Rusky 7y ago
> Take a look at some of the checks Zig has. I did, to make sure I wasn't missing something. There's nothing new there, and some things are missing. (This is not bad, Zig is still in development, but it's not exactly a new approach either.) > only C++ and Scala contend to be as complex as Rust or more. ... If you, like me, don't particularly like complex languages, then the complexity has a cost. This is why I linked our Reddit conversation- Rust is nowhere near as complex as C++, and its particular complexity's costs are not difficulty in reading or code review. > If you have an alternative to achieving a similar level of correctness with a much simpler language, I would very much prefer that. But this is exactly my point- I don't believe Zig is such an alternative! Zig and Rust both improve over C and C++'s complexity and readability, leading to some general correctness improvements; so far only Rust does anything different to address memory safety.
- pron 7y ago
  > There's nothing new there, and some things are missing. And it still goes further than C sanitizers (except the glaring missing piece of use-after-free, which I'm sure will be addressed). > Rust is nowhere near as complex as C++ It's hard to quantify this, but I think few people would point at any language (in real use) other than Scala, C++ and Ada as being as or more complex than Rust, so it's at the very top. Some people are perfectly OK with that and even prefer such languages. Rust is well beyond my language complexity comfort level (even C# is too complex for my taste, and, as a high-level language it offer much better abstraction than Rust, or any low-level language). So if C++ is at 500 and Rust is at 300, that doesn't mean much if I want to be at 50 or 100. > Zig and Rust both improve over C and C++'s complexity and readability I don't see it this way. I find it hard to put C and Zig in the same category as Rust. > so far only Rust does anything different to address memory safety. I disagree with that, too. Rust is the only one that addresses memory safety using sound guarantees. If you run tests on a Zig program out of the box you won't have array overflows; that's not what you get in C and C++. Zig's "big idea" or "doing anything different" is how it does partial evaluation with a single construct (comptime) that is drastically simpler than anything I've seen. In other words, as far as simplifying languages with tough requirements for low-level programming, it's rather revolutionary. That's my preferred direction for programming languages.