4 ms·

Or, y'know, "rustc 1.74.0" like a normal person.

by flooow 3y ago

gpm 3y ago
And in the rare instances where you're using in-development features "rust nightly-2023-12-18" Literally the only reason to specify via a hash* would be if you were using such a bleeding edge feature that it was only merged in the last 48 hours or so and no nightly versions had been cut. *Or I suppose you don't trust the supply chain, and you either aren't satisfied with or can't create tooling that checks the hash against a lockfile, but then you have the same problem with literally any other compiler for any language.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  Indeed. If I'm specifying a hash for anything I'm definitely not leaving things up to the very, very wide range of behaviours covered by the C and C++ standards.
legends2k 3y ago
That's besides the point. Adhering to a language standard is much clearer than specifying it by a language compiler's version. Behaviour is documented in the former while one has to observe the output of a binary (and hope that side effects are understood with their full gravity).
- estebank 3y ago
  But no-one writes code against the standard. We all write code against the reality of the compiler(s) we use. If there's a compiler bug, you either use a different version, a different vendor, or we side step the code triggering the issue. The spec only tells you that the vendor might fix this in the future.
  - _gabe_ 3y ago
    This is definitely not true. Whenever I have a question about a C++ language feature I typically go here first[0], and then if I’m looking for compiler specific info I go to the applicable compiler docs second. Likewise, for Java I go here[1]. For JavaScript I typically reference Mozilla since those docs are usually well written, but they reference the spec where applicable and I dig deeper if needed[2]. Now, none of these links are the specifications for the languages listed, but they all copiously link to the specification where applicable. In rare situations, I have gone directly to the specification. That’s usually if I’m trying to parse a subset of the language or understand an obscure language feature. I would argue no one writes code against a compiler. Sure we all validate our code with a compiler, but a compiler does not tell you how the language works or interacts with itself. I write my code and look for answers to my questions in the specification for my respective languages, and I suspect most programmers do as well. [0]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/ https://en.cppreference.com/w/ [1]: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/index.html https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/index.html [2]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript
    - estebank 3y ago
      If the compiler you use and the spec of your language disagree, what do you do? The Project is working on a specification. The Foundation hired someone for it. A Rust spec done purely on paper ahead of time would be the contents of the accepted RFCs. The final implementation almost never matches what was described because during the lengthy implementation and stabilization process we encounter multitude of unknown unknowns. The work of the spec writers will be to go back and document the result of that process. For what is worth the seeming dragging of feet on this is because the people that would be qualified and inclined to doing that work were working on other, more pressing matters. If we had had a spec back in, let's say, Rust 1.31, what would have that changed, in practice?
      - gkbrk 3y ago
        > If the compiler you use and the spec of your language disagree, what do you do? If the compiler claims to follow the specified version of the spec, and it doesn't, you file a compiler bug. And then use the subset that it supports, perhaps by using an older spec if it supports that fully. Perhaps looking for alternative compilers that have better/full coverage of a spec. "Supports the spec minus these differences" is still miles better than "any behaviour can change because the Rust 2.1.0 compiler compiles code that the Rust 2.1.0 compiler compiles".
- wongarsu 3y ago
  But barely anyone gets to write C++11. You write C++11 for MSVC2022, or C++11 that compiles with LLVM 15+ and GCC 8+, and maybe MSVC if you invest a couple hours of effort into it. That's really not that different from saying you require a minimum compiler version of Rust 1.74.0.

Or, y'know, "rustc 1.74.0" like a normal person.

by flooow 3y ago

Or, y'know, "rustc 1.74.0" like a normal person.

gpm 3y ago

And in the rare instances where you're using in-development features "rust nightly-2023-12-18" Literally the only reason to specify via a hash* would be if you were using such a bleeding edge feature that it was only merged in the last 48 hours or so and no nightly versions had been cut. *Or I suppose you don't trust the supply chain, and you either aren't satisfied with or can't create tooling that checks the hash against a lockfile, but then you have the same problem with literally any other compiler for any language.

rcxdude 3y ago
Indeed. If I'm specifying a hash for anything I'm definitely not leaving things up to the very, very wide range of behaviours covered by the C and C++ standards.

legends2k 3y ago

That's besides the point. Adhering to a language standard is much clearer than specifying it by a language compiler's version. Behaviour is documented in the former while one has to observe the output of a binary (and hope that side effects are understood with their full gravity).

estebank 3y ago
But no-one writes code against the standard. We all write code against the reality of the compiler(s) we use. If there's a compiler bug, you either use a different version, a different vendor, or we side step the code triggering the issue. The spec only tells you that the vendor might fix this in the future.
- _gabe_ 3y ago
  This is definitely not true. Whenever I have a question about a C++ language feature I typically go here first[0], and then if I’m looking for compiler specific info I go to the applicable compiler docs second. Likewise, for Java I go here[1]. For JavaScript I typically reference Mozilla since those docs are usually well written, but they reference the spec where applicable and I dig deeper if needed[2]. Now, none of these links are the specifications for the languages listed, but they all copiously link to the specification where applicable. In rare situations, I have gone directly to the specification. That’s usually if I’m trying to parse a subset of the language or understand an obscure language feature. I would argue no one writes code against a compiler. Sure we all validate our code with a compiler, but a compiler does not tell you how the language works or interacts with itself. I write my code and look for answers to my questions in the specification for my respective languages, and I suspect most programmers do as well. [0]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/ https://en.cppreference.com/w/ [1]: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/index.html https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/index.html [2]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript
  - estebank 3y ago
    If the compiler you use and the spec of your language disagree, what do you do? The Project is working on a specification. The Foundation hired someone for it. A Rust spec done purely on paper ahead of time would be the contents of the accepted RFCs. The final implementation almost never matches what was described because during the lengthy implementation and stabilization process we encounter multitude of unknown unknowns. The work of the spec writers will be to go back and document the result of that process. For what is worth the seeming dragging of feet on this is because the people that would be qualified and inclined to doing that work were working on other, more pressing matters. If we had had a spec back in, let's say, Rust 1.31, what would have that changed, in practice?
    - gkbrk 3y ago
      > If the compiler you use and the spec of your language disagree, what do you do? If the compiler claims to follow the specified version of the spec, and it doesn't, you file a compiler bug. And then use the subset that it supports, perhaps by using an older spec if it supports that fully. Perhaps looking for alternative compilers that have better/full coverage of a spec. "Supports the spec minus these differences" is still miles better than "any behaviour can change because the Rust 2.1.0 compiler compiles code that the Rust 2.1.0 compiler compiles".
wongarsu 3y ago
But barely anyone gets to write C++11. You write C++11 for MSVC2022, or C++11 that compiles with LLVM 15+ and GCC 8+, and maybe MSVC if you invest a couple hours of effort into it. That's really not that different from saying you require a minimum compiler version of Rust 1.74.0.