3 ms·

Bzzt. Rust doesn't have exceptions. It has panics. And that's exactly how it's already implemented. If there's a bug, it panics. If you mean "return an error i

Bzzt. Rust doesn't have exceptions. It has panics. And that's exactly how it's already implemented. If there's a bug, it panics. If you mean "return an error instead," then bzzt again. Read the next section down.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago
Bzzt to the language, if anything. Panic practically everywhere is just not an admissible option, most definitely not for anything that tries to call itself a systems language. Proving that there is no reasonable alternative would be equivalent to claiming the language is unusable.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  Thank you, Random Internet Stranger, for teaching me such a valuable lesson. I now know never to use any language that is Turing complete.
  - lmm 4y ago
    Turing complete languages are legacy cruft. There are no compelling use cases where they're actually more expressive, and sheer code execution performance is never the bottleneck in a realistic-sized system.
    - burntsushi 4y ago
      Feel free to back it up with real examples. Otherwise, previous conversations with you have just been frustrating exchanges about pie-in-the-sky stuff. Just seems like you want to be bombastic for the sake of being bombastic. > and sheer code execution performance is never the bottleneck in a realistic-sized system. TIL that code execution perf doesn't matter and I've wasted almost a decade of my life focusing on it. Wow I wish you told me sooner! What a ridiculous comment.
      - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > Just seems like you want to be bombastic for the sake of being bombastic. Ironically, that's exactly how you seem when just drop the "Turing completeness" bomb on a discussion about error handling. It's very hard not to see it as a ridiculously childish tantrum, since not only there's no actual argument, it is by definition impossible for it to be relevant to the discussion. Anyway, I would not be writing this if it wasn't because you keep pumping direct personal attacks to everyone who dares counter your posts, which are already in a terrible tone.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        Thanks for the free lesson, Random Internet Stranger. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, the cognitive dissonance you give me is just too much to bare. Your wisdom is clearly beyond reproach, and so therefore Rust cannot be a systems language since it has panics. Yet, I and many others use Rust for systems programming. My brain might explode from the contradiction!
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > therefore Rust cannot be a systems language since it has panics Or, the obvious alternative that I was trying to point out: your analysis is wrong, and therefore, assuming the language is not useless, there must be a proper alternative to "panics everywhere" * that you are not accounting for ! https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099 https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099 * This is just to explicitly write the phrase again before it is (again) twisted as calling for a strict prohibition of all non-terminating conditions or some other childish nonsense. Even unwinding panics (which are exceptions in all but name) can be an alternative, and Rust does support them.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        Cool, good thing I didn't say to panic everywhere. That lkml post has zero relevance here. He's asking for fallible allocations. Which is totally reasonable. Serious question: did you read the entire blog? If so, can you specifically point out passages you disagree with and why? EDIT: And seriously, I started out this conversation with a serious comment asking you to elaborate on what you meant by asking something very concrete: how would you change the code example in my blog to conform to your view? You decided to flippantly respond with a non-answer in the first place. Why not go back to the original question I asked and give a real answer? If you don't know Rust, then use pseudo code. We're talking about a dozen lines here. It shouldn't take long.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    Happy to help, albeit I do not see why that is a conclusion of my argument.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

Bzzt to the language, if anything. Panic practically everywhere is just not an admissible option, most definitely not for anything that tries to call itself a systems language. Proving that there is no reasonable alternative would be equivalent to claiming the language is unusable.

burntsushi 4y ago
Thank you, Random Internet Stranger, for teaching me such a valuable lesson. I now know never to use any language that is Turing complete.
- lmm 4y ago
  Turing complete languages are legacy cruft. There are no compelling use cases where they're actually more expressive, and sheer code execution performance is never the bottleneck in a realistic-sized system.
  - burntsushi 4y ago
    Feel free to back it up with real examples. Otherwise, previous conversations with you have just been frustrating exchanges about pie-in-the-sky stuff. Just seems like you want to be bombastic for the sake of being bombastic. > and sheer code execution performance is never the bottleneck in a realistic-sized system. TIL that code execution perf doesn't matter and I've wasted almost a decade of my life focusing on it. Wow I wish you told me sooner! What a ridiculous comment.
    - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      > Just seems like you want to be bombastic for the sake of being bombastic. Ironically, that's exactly how you seem when just drop the "Turing completeness" bomb on a discussion about error handling. It's very hard not to see it as a ridiculously childish tantrum, since not only there's no actual argument, it is by definition impossible for it to be relevant to the discussion. Anyway, I would not be writing this if it wasn't because you keep pumping direct personal attacks to everyone who dares counter your posts, which are already in a terrible tone.
      - burntsushi 4y ago
        Thanks for the free lesson, Random Internet Stranger. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, the cognitive dissonance you give me is just too much to bare. Your wisdom is clearly beyond reproach, and so therefore Rust cannot be a systems language since it has panics. Yet, I and many others use Rust for systems programming. My brain might explode from the contradiction!
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > therefore Rust cannot be a systems language since it has panics Or, the obvious alternative that I was trying to point out: your analysis is wrong, and therefore, assuming the language is not useless, there must be a proper alternative to "panics everywhere" * that you are not accounting for ! https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099 https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099 * This is just to explicitly write the phrase again before it is (again) twisted as calling for a strict prohibition of all non-terminating conditions or some other childish nonsense. Even unwinding panics (which are exceptions in all but name) can be an alternative, and Rust does support them.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        Cool, good thing I didn't say to panic everywhere. That lkml post has zero relevance here. He's asking for fallible allocations. Which is totally reasonable. Serious question: did you read the entire blog? If so, can you specifically point out passages you disagree with and why? EDIT: And seriously, I started out this conversation with a serious comment asking you to elaborate on what you meant by asking something very concrete: how would you change the code example in my blog to conform to your view? You decided to flippantly respond with a non-answer in the first place. Why not go back to the original question I asked and give a real answer? If you don't know Rust, then use pseudo code. We're talking about a dozen lines here. It shouldn't take long.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  Happy to help, albeit I do not see why that is a conclusion of my argument.