4 ms·

Why? C isn't type-safe.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
C doesn’t lack safety by-design - it’s hobbled by its history and constraints imposed by its userbase - otherwise C would have major breaking changes more often.
- hackyhacky 6y ago
  C absolutely lacks type-safety by design. Otherwise what would malloc return, besides void*? How would you implement generic containers in C, without using macros or void*? Edit: formatting
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    * malloc would accept a typename argument T and return T* * calloc would a;so accept a typename T and count and return T[count]* * Generic containers could be implemented as something closer to C++ templates (or preprocessor macros on steroids, like T4, as you suggest).
    - hackyhacky 6y ago
      There is no typename in C.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > Otherwise what would malloc return, besides void* IIRC, historically void* didn't exist, and it used char*. It added void as a unit type, and absent historical baggage could add... let's call it "noreturn" as a bottom type: #define NULL ((noreturn*)0) noreturn* malloc(size_t); void free(void*); noreturn exit(int); // never returns int main() { // where (T)... is any expression of type T void x = (T)...; // throw away the value T y = (noreturn)...; // a nonterminating expression void* p = (T*)...; // pointers convertible *to* void* T* q = (noreturn*)...; // pointers convertible *from* noreturn* *(noreturn*)...; // notionally, this should always fault *(void*)...; // read zero bytes, so always fine }
peawee 6y ago
And that's (part of) why C needs to go.
- hackyhacky 6y ago
  Sure. But why not replace it with something that is type-safe AND already has generics, like Rust? Why are we trying to get a do-over on Go?
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    At this point it’s history: Go and Rust both got started around the same time - one by Mozilla and the other by Google. They’ve both reached critical-mass over the past ~10 years - so expecting one of them to disappear is like expecting Autodesk to choose between 3ds and Maya...
  - seeekr 6y ago
    Rust and Go both aim to create safe, performant, modern languages suitable for use from the systems layer up, differing in some of their primary goals: Rust is a sane C++: Zero-overhead abstractions, not afraid of language complexity. Go is a modern C: Simplicity, stability. They have some overlap in what they're best at, but they both take on unique and important missions that both need to be targeted, in our rapidly expanding universe of software engineering. (edit: formatting)
williamdclt 6y ago
I think that's the point, the argument is that a "new" language needs (at least) type safety to successfully dethrone C

C doesn’t lack safety by-design - it’s hobbled by its history and constraints imposed by its userbase - otherwise C would have major breaking changes more often.

hackyhacky 6y ago
C absolutely lacks type-safety by design. Otherwise what would malloc return, besides void*? How would you implement generic containers in C, without using macros or void*? Edit: formatting
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  * malloc would accept a typename argument T and return T* * calloc would a;so accept a typename T and count and return T[count]* * Generic containers could be implemented as something closer to C++ templates (or preprocessor macros on steroids, like T4, as you suggest).
  - hackyhacky 6y ago
    There is no typename in C.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Otherwise what would malloc return, besides void* IIRC, historically void* didn't exist, and it used char*. It added void as a unit type, and absent historical baggage could add... let's call it "noreturn" as a bottom type: #define NULL ((noreturn*)0) noreturn* malloc(size_t); void free(void*); noreturn exit(int); // never returns int main() { // where (T)... is any expression of type T void x = (T)...; // throw away the value T y = (noreturn)...; // a nonterminating expression void* p = (T*)...; // pointers convertible *to* void* T* q = (noreturn*)...; // pointers convertible *from* noreturn* *(noreturn*)...; // notionally, this should always fault *(void*)...; // read zero bytes, so always fine }

peawee 6y ago

And that's (part of) why C needs to go.

hackyhacky 6y ago
Sure. But why not replace it with something that is type-safe AND already has generics, like Rust? Why are we trying to get a do-over on Go?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  At this point it’s history: Go and Rust both got started around the same time - one by Mozilla and the other by Google. They’ve both reached critical-mass over the past ~10 years - so expecting one of them to disappear is like expecting Autodesk to choose between 3ds and Maya...
- seeekr 6y ago
  Rust and Go both aim to create safe, performant, modern languages suitable for use from the systems layer up, differing in some of their primary goals: Rust is a sane C++: Zero-overhead abstractions, not afraid of language complexity. Go is a modern C: Simplicity, stability. They have some overlap in what they're best at, but they both take on unique and important missions that both need to be targeted, in our rapidly expanding universe of software engineering. (edit: formatting)

williamdclt 6y ago

I think that's the point, the argument is that a "new" language needs (at least) type safety to successfully dethrone C