4 ms·

As a Zig fan, I disagree. I think it's really important to examine the toolchain that beginners are going to use. > I'm also focusing on software as it is typ

by klyrs 4y ago

As a Zig fan, I disagree. I think it's really important to examine the toolchain that beginners are going to use. > I'm also focusing on software as it is typically shipped, ignoring eg bounds checking compilers like tcc or quarantining allocators like hardened_malloc which are rarely used because of the performance overhead. To advertize that Zig is perfectly safe because things like ASan exist would be misleading, because that's not what users get out of the box. Zig is up-front and honest about the tradeoffs between safety and performance, and this evaluation of Zig doesn't give any surprises if you're familiar with how Zig describes itself.

ajross 4y ago
> To advertize that Zig is perfectly safe because things like ASan exist would be misleading Exactly! And for the same reason. You frame your comparison within the bounds of techniques that are used in practice. You don't refuse to compare a tool ahead of time, especially when doing so reinforces your priors. To be blunt: ASan is great. ASan finds bugs. Everyone should use ASan. Everyone should advocate for ASan. But doing that cuts against the point the author is making (which is basically the same maximalist Rust screed we've all heard again and again), so... he skipped it. That's not good faith comparison, it's spin.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  ASAN doesn’t add memory safety to the base language. It catches problems during testing, assuming those problems occur during the testing run (they don’t always! ASAN is not a panacea!). It’s perfectly fair to rule it out of bounds for this sort of comparison.
- lmm 4y ago
  > You frame your comparison within the bounds of techniques that are used in practice. Well, is ASan used in practice, by the relevant target audience (i.e. mainstream C++ developers)? My guess is that the vast majority of the people both Rust and Zig are aiming for are people who don't use ASan with C++ today and wouldn't use ASan with Rust or Zig if they switched to them.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Wait, are you saying that because the author didn't push your personal agenda, that's spin? Hardly.

by klyrs 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

> To advertize that Zig is perfectly safe because things like ASan exist would be misleading Exactly! And for the same reason. You frame your comparison within the bounds of techniques that are used in practice. You don't refuse to compare a tool ahead of time, especially when doing so reinforces your priors. To be blunt: ASan is great. ASan finds bugs. Everyone should use ASan. Everyone should advocate for ASan. But doing that cuts against the point the author is making (which is basically the same maximalist Rust screed we've all heard again and again), so... he skipped it. That's not good faith comparison, it's spin.

KerrAvon 4y ago
ASAN doesn’t add memory safety to the base language. It catches problems during testing, assuming those problems occur during the testing run (they don’t always! ASAN is not a panacea!). It’s perfectly fair to rule it out of bounds for this sort of comparison.
lmm 4y ago
> You frame your comparison within the bounds of techniques that are used in practice. Well, is ASan used in practice, by the relevant target audience (i.e. mainstream C++ developers)? My guess is that the vast majority of the people both Rust and Zig are aiming for are people who don't use ASan with C++ today and wouldn't use ASan with Rust or Zig if they switched to them.
klyrs 4y ago
Wait, are you saying that because the author didn't push your personal agenda, that's spin? Hardly.