37 ms·

> Why are you offended at the idea that languages should be memory safe by default? Why are you okay with languages that are not overflow-safe, or unit-safe, o

by addaon 2y ago

> Why are you offended at the idea that languages should be memory safe by default? Why are you okay with languages that are not overflow-safe, or unit-safe, or infinite-loop-safe, or safe against bit flips? Memory safety violations are a major chunk of bugs. Writing code to avoid them is about as hard as writing code to avoid other major classes of bugs. In either case, it’s failable. Static analysis and testing then gives confidence that the system is safe, by multiple metrics. Memory safety isn’t special enough to demand a different approach here — quality code requires a coherent approach to quality across multiple bug classes.

jerf 2y ago
Memory safety doesn't require a special approach. We have abundant experience that says it does not interfere with writing code. It is only C and C++ that lack it. Nobody else in any other language is running around saying "Oh, no, if only I could have memory unsafety back!" No other language community is rushing to put it back into their language. Nobody else even wants it back. You argue like we live in some hypothetical universe where only some bizarre academic language has recently invented the idea in a world where nobody else has even heard of the idea, and it's solving a problem we don't generally have. But the truth is, we already have memory safety... everywhere except C and C++. Those languages stand alone now. They are the only ones where it's an issue. And they have demonstrated in as concrete an engineering way as it can be demonstrated that it is a problem, on numerous levels. You're not arguing against some new fangled idea that has no evidence. You're arguing against something that is completely normal engineering practice in place almost everywhere, and the rest of us look at you arguing against it as if you're arguing against that source control is a stupid idea for people who can't keep track of the changes they've made, by gosh, just sticking random prefixes and suffixes on my files is enough for me and it ought to be enough for everyone. We're not hypothesizing about it. We've been living it for decades. We're not asking the world to change to be memory safe... it already has. Except C and C++.

by addaon 2y ago

jerf 2y ago

Memory safety doesn't require a special approach. We have abundant experience that says it does not interfere with writing code. It is only C and C++ that lack it. Nobody else in any other language is running around saying "Oh, no, if only I could have memory unsafety back!" No other language community is rushing to put it back into their language. Nobody else even wants it back. You argue like we live in some hypothetical universe where only some bizarre academic language has recently invented the idea in a world where nobody else has even heard of the idea, and it's solving a problem we don't generally have. But the truth is, we already have memory safety... everywhere except C and C++. Those languages stand alone now. They are the only ones where it's an issue. And they have demonstrated in as concrete an engineering way as it can be demonstrated that it is a problem, on numerous levels. You're not arguing against some new fangled idea that has no evidence. You're arguing against something that is completely normal engineering practice in place almost everywhere, and the rest of us look at you arguing against it as if you're arguing against that source control is a stupid idea for people who can't keep track of the changes they've made, by gosh, just sticking random prefixes and suffixes on my files is enough for me and it ought to be enough for everyone. We're not hypothesizing about it. We've been living it for decades. We're not asking the world to change to be memory safe... it already has. Except C and C++.