3 ms·

I've taken a look at pretty much all of your comments on this story, and that seems to be the logical conclusion of your stance on generics. I'm not really sure

by Zababa 5y ago

I've taken a look at pretty much all of your comments on this story, and that seems to be the logical conclusion of your stance on generics. I'm not really sure how you could think otherwise and write the comment I replied to, and lots of others in here. To someone that said "Even ignoring performance, it has no support for checking the types, which in C means it can easily mess up memory badly." you replied "It does not matter. Your concerns are entirely academic. Simplicity wins.". Type safety is a real concern, and lack of it has conséquences in the real world, often in the form of bugs or vulnerablities, but you seem deaf to any arguments so I don't see the point of arguing with you. Instead, I've linked you something that you might like.

jstimpfle 5y ago
My point is there is no need to be so preconcerned about a rarely used function that requires giving up a little safety (in a place with very little "code entropy" even). Doing so does not equal giving up type safety completely, not even 1% of it. There are way bigger issues to address even in the best of codebases. > Type safety is a real concern, and lack of it has conséquences in the real world, often in the form of bugs or vulnerablities To me type safety is first and foremost a usability feature - already a primitive type system like C's saves tons of time when changing code. But is it a great concern with regards to bugs and vulnerabilities? Type safety is static, once you've run a particular section of code, you can be relatively sure that there are no type issues on that path. (Granted that to run all code sections even once can be lots of work). That is contrary to other types of bugs which might only show up on rare occasions, and possibly require malicious intent.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  Type safety is a soundness guarantee and can be , in some implementations, a usability feature.

by Zababa 5y ago

jstimpfle 5y ago

My point is there is no need to be so preconcerned about a rarely used function that requires giving up a little safety (in a place with very little "code entropy" even). Doing so does not equal giving up type safety completely, not even 1% of it. There are way bigger issues to address even in the best of codebases. > Type safety is a real concern, and lack of it has conséquences in the real world, often in the form of bugs or vulnerablities To me type safety is first and foremost a usability feature - already a primitive type system like C's saves tons of time when changing code. But is it a great concern with regards to bugs and vulnerabilities? Type safety is static, once you've run a particular section of code, you can be relatively sure that there are no type issues on that path. (Granted that to run all code sections even once can be lots of work). That is contrary to other types of bugs which might only show up on rare occasions, and possibly require malicious intent.

rowanG077 5y ago
Type safety is a soundness guarantee and can be , in some implementations, a usability feature.