3 ms·

Once compiled to assembly, every data is accessed via pointers. Every data structure is represented with pointers. Almost everything is a pointer. According to

by linkdd 5y ago

Once compiled to assembly, every data is accessed via pointers. Every data structure is represented with pointers. Almost everything is a pointer. According to you, all softwares are broken and harmful? Programming languages can provide a safe interface to pointers (just like Rust do with `Box<>`, `Rc<>`, `Arc<>`, or C++ in some ways with `shared_ptr<>` and `unique_ptr<>`). Also, "Why not?" here clearly means "I did it for fun" / "Because I can".

artemonster 5y ago
Its the same crowd that goes screeching when they see „goto“ eyeroll
- linkdd 5y ago
  Wait until you see people saying "exceptions are glorified goto". Basically, every statement of the form "X is broken and harmful" either don't understand X, or have read it somewhere else without giving a second thought. X exists because it had some use at some point. Y and Z are implemented thanks to X. Now we no longer need to do X by hand. This does not make it broken nor harmful.
lr4444lr 5y ago
Cmon. In a good faith reading, he means as a matter of developer access. And he's not wrong as concerns what 90+% of devs have to get done at their jobs.
- linkdd 5y ago
  Yes pointers are hard to get right. No, depicting it as "broken and harmful" is not ok, even with good faith reading.
- mkesper 5y ago
  Exactly. Should have written "access to raw pointers for developers".
aunty_helen 5y ago
You could extrapolate this right down to the binary layer. Are lower level technology’s more dangerous, no. Are they more difficult to get right? Yes. Do we want to stop worrying about finicky correctness or pointers and worry about building more complex things? Probably yes also.
- linkdd 5y ago
  > Do we want to stop worrying about finicky correctness or pointers and worry about building more complex things? Probably yes also. Which is why I mentioned the safe higher-level interfaces provided by programming languages. Yet, I think it's important to learn about the lower level technology to better understand the higher level technology. And definitely stop spitting on lower level technologies.

by linkdd 5y ago

artemonster 5y ago

Its the same crowd that goes screeching when they see „goto“ eyeroll

linkdd 5y ago
Wait until you see people saying "exceptions are glorified goto". Basically, every statement of the form "X is broken and harmful" either don't understand X, or have read it somewhere else without giving a second thought. X exists because it had some use at some point. Y and Z are implemented thanks to X. Now we no longer need to do X by hand. This does not make it broken nor harmful.

lr4444lr 5y ago

Cmon. In a good faith reading, he means as a matter of developer access. And he's not wrong as concerns what 90+% of devs have to get done at their jobs.

linkdd 5y ago
Yes pointers are hard to get right. No, depicting it as "broken and harmful" is not ok, even with good faith reading.
mkesper 5y ago
Exactly. Should have written "access to raw pointers for developers".

aunty_helen 5y ago

You could extrapolate this right down to the binary layer. Are lower level technology’s more dangerous, no. Are they more difficult to get right? Yes. Do we want to stop worrying about finicky correctness or pointers and worry about building more complex things? Probably yes also.

linkdd 5y ago
> Do we want to stop worrying about finicky correctness or pointers and worry about building more complex things? Probably yes also. Which is why I mentioned the safe higher-level interfaces provided by programming languages. Yet, I think it's important to learn about the lower level technology to better understand the higher level technology. And definitely stop spitting on lower level technologies.