3 ms·

There are plenty of programs written in C that will not kill somebody if there is a memory safety issue. It is not "insane" to write a game in C. Seatbelts are

There are plenty of programs written in C that will not kill somebody if there is a memory safety issue. It is not "insane" to write a game in C. Seatbelts are about physical safety which is in a completely different category.

Ygg2 4y ago
> There are plenty of programs written in C that will not kill No, of course not (see analogy) - It will just make me wish for sweet, sweet release of death (see hyperbole). Point is, you can eliminate a class of nasty bugs. And instead you double down on it. So, I'll use a more programming example. C has more foot guns than just memory issues e.g. `if (a=4)`. For all its faults, Java only allowing boolean expression in if statements was a move in right direction. Now imagine after Java some C inheritor (Rust, Go, Carbon, Zig, Nim...) looked at `if (a=4)` and said. Yes. We need that in our lang. Can't you see we regressed in this hypothetical example? We traded correctness for expressivity. Same with memory safety. Rather than using a GC or some borrow checking system, we shrug and say, well what can ya do?
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > Rather than using a GC or some borrow checking system, we shrug and say, well what can ya do? Try different paths until someone stumbles on the One True Way™. Plus, `if (a=4)` will emit a compiler warning of ‘statement always evaluates to true’ or somesuch and is useful in some cases like ‘if (!(a=foo())) goto error;’
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    > Try different paths until someone stumbles on the One True Way™. I'm aware there isn't a perfect solution (because of Rice Theorem). But we don't need perfect, we need better than status quo (C). > Plus, `if (a=4)` will emit a compiler warning It's still a step down. What is better than a compiler warning that people can ignore? Prohibiting the syntax altogether. > goto error; This is another example of a famous chain-footgun. Most langs eschew use of goto even if it allows more flows than plain old for/while loops.
tayistay 4y ago
I write art/music apps where nobody dies if it crashes in the field. But my perspective is this: because I'm an indie developer, I will get more hate mail and nasty reviews from people when they lose their work because my app crashed (or even if they don't lose their work!). I'd like to avoid said hate mail, and the nasty reviews hurt my business. I think developers at companies are more insulated from the customer and don't think about this as much.

Ygg2 4y ago

> There are plenty of programs written in C that will not kill No, of course not (see analogy) - It will just make me wish for sweet, sweet release of death (see hyperbole). Point is, you can eliminate a class of nasty bugs. And instead you double down on it. So, I'll use a more programming example. C has more foot guns than just memory issues e.g. `if (a=4)`. For all its faults, Java only allowing boolean expression in if statements was a move in right direction. Now imagine after Java some C inheritor (Rust, Go, Carbon, Zig, Nim...) looked at `if (a=4)` and said. Yes. We need that in our lang. Can't you see we regressed in this hypothetical example? We traded correctness for expressivity. Same with memory safety. Rather than using a GC or some borrow checking system, we shrug and say, well what can ya do?

UncleEntity 4y ago
> Rather than using a GC or some borrow checking system, we shrug and say, well what can ya do? Try different paths until someone stumbles on the One True Way™. Plus, `if (a=4)` will emit a compiler warning of ‘statement always evaluates to true’ or somesuch and is useful in some cases like ‘if (!(a=foo())) goto error;’
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > Try different paths until someone stumbles on the One True Way™. I'm aware there isn't a perfect solution (because of Rice Theorem). But we don't need perfect, we need better than status quo (C). > Plus, `if (a=4)` will emit a compiler warning It's still a step down. What is better than a compiler warning that people can ignore? Prohibiting the syntax altogether. > goto error; This is another example of a famous chain-footgun. Most langs eschew use of goto even if it allows more flows than plain old for/while loops.

tayistay 4y ago

I write art/music apps where nobody dies if it crashes in the field. But my perspective is this: because I'm an indie developer, I will get more hate mail and nasty reviews from people when they lose their work because my app crashed (or even if they don't lose their work!). I'd like to avoid said hate mail, and the nasty reviews hurt my business. I think developers at companies are more insulated from the customer and don't think about this as much.