3 ms·

just don't. and I am waiting for your contribution in free and open source software to write correct, safe, and performant in Ada. It'd be much more welcome if

by lemper 3y ago

just don't. and I am waiting for your contribution in free and open source software to write correct, safe, and performant in Ada. It'd be much more welcome if you write the formal business requirements in Spark. Rust? why would want to write SAFE software in a language without formal spec? I question the morality af those people.

junon 3y ago
I too question why people make flame-baiting comments about topics they don't understand.
- lemper 3y ago
  agree, always see that kind of replies in threads related to software written in C. what those people want, eh? always derailing thread like that. I guess it's RESF in action. makes me despise Rust, tbh.
  - junon 3y ago
    I was making a remark about your comment. And it's because most security vulnerabilities these days have to do with memory issues, which must be manually enforced in languages like C. In Rust you get most of that for free, often even more optimized than being hand-written. Also, in my opinion, Rust is also just a nicer language to use than C - as much as I love C, I'm wildly more productive in Rust than in C/C++, and have a lot of peace of mind knowing I can more strenuously audit the behavior, security, and other aspects of the code with relative ease. I suggest trying Rust, understanding it, and then making a judgement call. Perhaps the community is 'loud' about it for good reason.
    - lemper 3y ago
      same, I was making a remark about your comment. also, in my and industry with much more as the stake, opinion, Ada is better. i suggest you to try Ada.
    - anonymoushn 3y ago
      I'm using Rust now and it seems quite nice but it could use a spec and defined semantics for provenance or whatever. It's difficult to discuss memory safety if what is actually meant is "Whatever Rust does" while the Rust docs repeatedly admit they aren't sure what Rust is meant to do in relevant areas.
      - junon 3y ago
        Not sure what you mean. Memory safety is one thing, provenance is another. Which spec are you missing?
        anonymoushn 3y ago
        Well, there's no spec for any part of the language, there's a bunch of non-normative documents about how rustc might happen to work. In the non-normative documents that speculate about what guarantees rustc might require of unsafe code in order to avoid undefined behavior and ensure memory safety, provenance certainly does come up.
mrkeen 3y ago
> why would want to write SAFE software in a language without formal spec? A formal spec just means someone took the time and effort to write one down. A formal declaration that a language makes no attempt at preventing memory safety is not safer than an informal declaration that a language is memory safe.
phyzome 3y ago
You seem to be implying that C now has a formal spec.

by lemper 3y ago

junon 3y ago

I too question why people make flame-baiting comments about topics they don't understand.

lemper 3y ago
agree, always see that kind of replies in threads related to software written in C. what those people want, eh? always derailing thread like that. I guess it's RESF in action. makes me despise Rust, tbh.
- junon 3y ago
  I was making a remark about your comment. And it's because most security vulnerabilities these days have to do with memory issues, which must be manually enforced in languages like C. In Rust you get most of that for free, often even more optimized than being hand-written. Also, in my opinion, Rust is also just a nicer language to use than C - as much as I love C, I'm wildly more productive in Rust than in C/C++, and have a lot of peace of mind knowing I can more strenuously audit the behavior, security, and other aspects of the code with relative ease. I suggest trying Rust, understanding it, and then making a judgement call. Perhaps the community is 'loud' about it for good reason.
  - lemper 3y ago
    same, I was making a remark about your comment. also, in my and industry with much more as the stake, opinion, Ada is better. i suggest you to try Ada.
  - anonymoushn 3y ago
    I'm using Rust now and it seems quite nice but it could use a spec and defined semantics for provenance or whatever. It's difficult to discuss memory safety if what is actually meant is "Whatever Rust does" while the Rust docs repeatedly admit they aren't sure what Rust is meant to do in relevant areas.
    - junon 3y ago
      Not sure what you mean. Memory safety is one thing, provenance is another. Which spec are you missing?
      - anonymoushn 3y ago
        Well, there's no spec for any part of the language, there's a bunch of non-normative documents about how rustc might happen to work. In the non-normative documents that speculate about what guarantees rustc might require of unsafe code in order to avoid undefined behavior and ensure memory safety, provenance certainly does come up.

mrkeen 3y ago

> why would want to write SAFE software in a language without formal spec? A formal spec just means someone took the time and effort to write one down. A formal declaration that a language makes no attempt at preventing memory safety is not safer than an informal declaration that a language is memory safe.

phyzome 3y ago

You seem to be implying that C now has a formal spec.