5 ms·
> The article itself is basically this guys journey with C and the steps he takes to get something other languages now build in (...) Not really. The author de
by simplotek 4y ago
> The article itself is basically this guys journey with C and the steps he takes to get something other languages now build in (...)
Not really. The author describes he put together a framework for C that implements memory safety features.
Isn't it intellectually dishonest to criticize the adoption of libraries that provide features that other languages may or may not have built in?
What's the end goal exactly? Use safety features to write safer software, or attack anyone that hasn't mindlessly jumped onto a particular bandwagon?
- alexvoda 4y agoThe point in Rust and C# and Java and others is that memory safety is either mandatory or opt-out instead of opt-in. This means you have some guarantees about the whole ecosystem. Of course you can augment a language with libraries. But you are one developer and everyone else will make different choices.
- simplotek 4y ago> This means you have some guarantees about the whole ecosystem. Sure, you are free to make this sort of claims. But they are besides the point, aren't they? The cliche being discussed here is C's hypothetical ties with memory safety issues, and here we are commenting on a discussion on how someone writes C using a framework focused on memory safety and thus providing "some guarantees" about their whole ecosystem. Yet, we're still seeing comments mindlessly parotting myths in spite of the facts that are being dangled right in front of their nose.
- burnished 4y agoIm surprised you read that as criticism, it was intended to be a frank and neutral description.