2 ms·
It seems like "worse is better" only applies selectively when C has the advantage. For instance, Rust has no formal spec, but surely that is fine according to t
by Thiez 6y ago
It seems like "worse is better" only applies selectively when C has the advantage. For instance, Rust has no formal spec, but surely that is fine according to the "worse is better" philosophy, because the current situation serves most, but not 100% of users. Rust doesn't support ancient architectures that aren't being manufactured anymore, but Rust supports most common architectures. Surely that is fine according to the "worse is better" philosophy?
It seems many who favor C over Rust don't actually believe in "worse is better". A language must be equal or better than C in all possible aspects before it can be greeted with reluctant distrust instead of hostility. "Worse is better" can be used to defend C, but never a new language.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoI think you’re missing what the essence of “worse is better” means. It’s about the complexity of provided solutions, not generic “badness” or undone work. This is explained well in the original “worse is better” paper (lisp vs C). Even if rust lacks a formal spec and ports to multiple platforms, it is unarguably more complex than C and is an example of “MIT” engineering. Both Rust and Zig pursue the “right thing” whereas C pursued the simplest workable thing, thus increasing its virality.
- pjmlp 6y agoUntil Zig fixes use-after-free, it isn't pursuing the "right thing".