4 ms·

I think we have quite different ideas what complex means. You seem to see a language (C or machine code), which, while based on simple principles, is complex in

I think we have quite different ideas what complex means. You seem to see a language (C or machine code), which, while based on simple principles, is complex in its behavior, especially if something goes wrong (which should not happen in the first place). I see literally a subtraction operation versus a huge memory safe language framework set up over the same machine, plus a whole lot more user facing surface level source code, just to achieve the same thing.

ghusbands 3y ago
Sure, C and machine code can be simple (or simplistic) but in a world in which 70% of severe security vulnerabilities are caused by memory safety issues, I'll generally prefer languages that are safe against them, even if I can't then use text macros to get from a child pointer to a parent pointer. But that's off-topic, really. In the message I originally replied to, I guess it's only the "since you can't ..." part that I really object to, as it's never going to be clearer to use &(par->child) and CONTAINER_OF(ch, some_type, child) than to use par.child and ch.parent.