4 ms·

There's a lot in here, but I'll target my primary gripe: I don't think it is at ALL fair to blame ABI designation on C. Platform developers have a choice to use

by sbf501 4y ago

There's a lot in here, but I'll target my primary gripe: I don't think it is at ALL fair to blame ABI designation on C. Platform developers have a choice to use an existing annotation or make the world more complex. Guess what? #2. Also, isn't it disingenous to take a cheap shot at C for not being "parse-able" when the OP's favorite language, Rust, has the same syntatic grey areas? I don't know enough about Rust, but from what I know it should have the same issues called out in the HAL paper OP cites.

skitter 4y ago
> Rust, has the same syntatic grey areas? I don't know enough about Rust, but from what I know it should have the same issues called out in the HAL paper OP cites. Which ones? Afaik in Rust it's always clear whether an identifier belongs to the value or the type (or macro) namespace, for example a variable declaration is `let foo =` or `let foo: Bar =` (possibly with a pattern on the left hand side), parameters & constants being similar. This alone rules out most of them. It also doesn't have if/else branches without braces, nor _Atomic. So yeah, seems odd to claim it's disingenuous.