3 ms·

> Programmers can not be trusted with manual memory management. We have decades of proof, billions and billions of dollars of bug fixes and mitigation investmen

> Programmers can not be trusted with manual memory management. We have decades of proof, billions and billions of dollars of bug fixes and mitigation investments, real world damages, etc. We have sanitizers if you are a bad programmer, use that if you don't trust yourself

kaba0 5y ago
It’s just ridiculous to call someone a bad programmer over memory bugs. By your own words you are definitely a bad programmer if you have ever written more than 1000 lines of code in low level programming language, because there is simply no way you haven’t made an error. You just don’t necessarily know about it, which in my opinion makes you a worse developer, especially with this ancient and destructive mindset.
- Shadonototra 5y ago
  There is nothing wrong with being a bad developer, we are all bad developers if we don't understand what we are doing We have the tools to eliminate memory bugs already Forcing people to use a language with a buitin sanitizer/babysitter that runs everytime you compile your code and as a result makes you wait 10+ minutes between each line of change is dumb Expecting your code to be bug free because the code written by someone else told you so is also dumb https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38899 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38899 who to trust in that case? -- educate and trust developers, use tools to audit your code when needed
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Sanitizers can only show you some memory problems that happen during a given runtime with given data. And your 10+ minutes baseless assumption is just demonstratively false. In the default debug mode it is literally instant with human perception on my current, not small project. Longer compiles only happen in release mode or when you introduce new dependencies. Shall I link you to Valgrind bugs as well?
    - Shadonototra 5y ago
      > And your 10+ minutes baseless assumption is just demonstratively false Ok, not 10+ minutes, more like 6 minutes on a beefy machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2WDBMjkh8&t=976s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2WDBMjkh8&t=976s > Shall I link you to Valgrind bugs as well? See, you fail to understand the point
      - staticassertion 5y ago
        As was already stated, sanitizers catch a subset of issues and rely on test coverage. Sanitizers have been in use by projects for years, with lots of money spent on fuzzing and test coverage, and there are still numerous issues.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

kaba0 5y ago

It’s just ridiculous to call someone a bad programmer over memory bugs. By your own words you are definitely a bad programmer if you have ever written more than 1000 lines of code in low level programming language, because there is simply no way you haven’t made an error. You just don’t necessarily know about it, which in my opinion makes you a worse developer, especially with this ancient and destructive mindset.

Shadonototra 5y ago
There is nothing wrong with being a bad developer, we are all bad developers if we don't understand what we are doing We have the tools to eliminate memory bugs already Forcing people to use a language with a buitin sanitizer/babysitter that runs everytime you compile your code and as a result makes you wait 10+ minutes between each line of change is dumb Expecting your code to be bug free because the code written by someone else told you so is also dumb https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38899 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38899 who to trust in that case? -- educate and trust developers, use tools to audit your code when needed
- kaba0 5y ago
  Sanitizers can only show you some memory problems that happen during a given runtime with given data. And your 10+ minutes baseless assumption is just demonstratively false. In the default debug mode it is literally instant with human perception on my current, not small project. Longer compiles only happen in release mode or when you introduce new dependencies. Shall I link you to Valgrind bugs as well?
  - Shadonototra 5y ago
    > And your 10+ minutes baseless assumption is just demonstratively false Ok, not 10+ minutes, more like 6 minutes on a beefy machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2WDBMjkh8&t=976s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2WDBMjkh8&t=976s > Shall I link you to Valgrind bugs as well? See, you fail to understand the point
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      As was already stated, sanitizers catch a subset of issues and rely on test coverage. Sanitizers have been in use by projects for years, with lots of money spent on fuzzing and test coverage, and there are still numerous issues.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]