4 ms·

Sentinel values are things the compiler has no idea about and I agree with you here. If the type system has no idea about these sentinel values, the compiler ca

Sentinel values are things the compiler has no idea about and I agree with you here. If the type system has no idea about these sentinel values, the compiler cannot help you with those edge cases. One aspect I think many people are bringing up, implicitly, is that they want a language that enforces a form of "correctness" so that you cannot put your programming into an "invalid state". I understand the appeal of this but it is not free, it does come at a cost. This implicit view assumes that all values are a form of "object" and "singular". Assuming pointers are "references" to a "singular object", rather than just a pigeonhole to a piece of memory which may have a type associated with it. This may seem like it is expressing he same concept, but the former is kind of like Aristotelian Object Orientated Ontology (OOO) naïvely applied to things which are not actually objects in the real world. Thinking of these things as "objects" is an abstraction and is not actually what is happening. It may have a lot of utility, but it is not the reality at hand. In many regards, most forms of Object Orientated Programming (OOP) in reality are an application of OOO (even the term "virtual" is from Aristotle). And Rust's ownership and lifetime semantics are another application too. But explaining this is in itself a long article. I know I won't convince people here about this, and that's absolutely fine as I don't expect to. It's just interesting to read many people's implicit assumptions about what how things "ought to be" with regards to a programming language.

steveklabnik 7y ago
I am already convinced OOP is Plato, but I’ve never thought about this with ownership! If you have a short version I’d love to hear it.
- gingerBill 7y ago
  Ownership semantics also suffer from the misapplication of what ownership is. Property cannot own property. In this case, it just becomes a hierarchical dependency system of responsibility. So "ownership" itself is the wrong term. "This object owns this object which in turn is owned by another object." but rather "This object is responsibly for this object which in turn is responsible for this object." In sum, you are artificially applying a hierarchy were one has not arose naturally, and adding the artificial concept of an "object" as an abstraction where there is no real "object" in reality. All of these abstractions that we apply to programming are just tools that we (hope to) get utility from. In order to interpret anything, we must use a model. Some models are better than others, and some models are downright wrong.

steveklabnik 7y ago

I am already convinced OOP is Plato, but I’ve never thought about this with ownership! If you have a short version I’d love to hear it.

gingerBill 7y ago
Ownership semantics also suffer from the misapplication of what ownership is. Property cannot own property. In this case, it just becomes a hierarchical dependency system of responsibility. So "ownership" itself is the wrong term. "This object owns this object which in turn is owned by another object." but rather "This object is responsibly for this object which in turn is responsible for this object." In sum, you are artificially applying a hierarchy were one has not arose naturally, and adding the artificial concept of an "object" as an abstraction where there is no real "object" in reality. All of these abstractions that we apply to programming are just tools that we (hope to) get utility from. In order to interpret anything, we must use a model. Some models are better than others, and some models are downright wrong.