9 ms·

This is really the crust of the argument. I absolutely love the Rust compiler for example, going back to Zig would feel a regression to me. There is a whole cla

by Sytten 1y ago

This is really the crust of the argument. I absolutely love the Rust compiler for example, going back to Zig would feel a regression to me. There is a whole class of bugs that my brain now assumes the compiler will handle for me.

pron 1y ago
Problem is, like they say the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions, the Rust compiler stops nine of every five memory safety issues. Put another way, while both Rust and Zig prevent memory safety issues, Zig does it with false negatives while Rust does it with false positives. This is by necessity when using the type system for that job, but it does come at a cost that disqualifies Rust for others... Nobody knows whether Rust and/or Zig themselves are the future of low-level programming, but I think it's likely that the future of low-level programming is that programmers who prefer one approach would use a Rust-like language, while those who prefer the other approach would use a Zig-like language. It will be intesting to see whether the preferences are evenly split, though, or one of them has a clear majority support.
- tialaramex 1y ago
  C++ already illustrates this idea you're talking about and we know exactly where this goes. Rust's false positives are annoying, so programmers are encouraged to further improve the borrowck and language features to reduce them. But the C++ or Zig false negatives just means your program malfunctions in unspecified ways and you may not even notice, so programmers are encouraged to introduce more and more such cases to the compiler. The drift over time is predictable, compared to ten years ago Rust has fewer false positives, C++ has more false negatives. You are correct to observe that there is no middle choice here, that's Rice's Theorem, non-trivial semantic correctness is Undecidable. But I would argue we already know what you're calling the "false positive" scenario is also not useful, we're just not at the point where people stop doing it anyway.
  - pron 1y ago
    > C++ already illustrates this idea you're talking about and we know exactly where this goes. No, it doesn't. Zig is safer than C++ (and it's much simpler, which also has an effect on correctness). Making up some binary distinction and then deciding that because C++ falls on the same side of it as Zig (except it doesn't, because Zig eliminates out-of-bounds access to the same degree as Rust, not C++) then what applies to one must apply to the other. There is simply no justification to make that equivalence. > There is no middle choice here, that's Rice's Theorem, non-trivial semantic correctness is Undecidable. That's nothing to do with Rice's theorem. Proving some properties with the type system isn't a general algorithm; it's a proof you have to work for in every program you write individually. There are languages (Idris, ATS) that allow you to prove any correctness property using the type system, with no false positives. It's a matter of the effort required, and there's nothing binary about that. To get a sense of the theoretical effort (the practical effort is something to be measured empirically, over time) consider the set of all C programs and the effort it would take to rewrite an arbitrary selection of them in Rust (while maintaining similar performance and footprint characteristics). I believe the effort is larger than doing the same to translate a JS program to a Haskell program.
    - rowanG077 1y ago
      Unless you actually use the simplicity to apply formal methods I don't think simplicity make a language safer. The exact opposite. You can see it play out in the C vs C++ arena. C++ is essentially just a more complex C. But I trust modern C++ much more in terms of memory safety.
      - pron 1y ago
        > Unless you actually use the simplicity to apply formal methods I don't think simplicity make a language safer. That depends what you mean by "safer", but it is an empirical fact that unsound methods (like tests and code reviews) are extremely effective at preventing bugs, so the claim that formal methods are the only way is just wrong (and I say this as a formal methods guy, although formal methods have come a long way since the seventies, when we thought the point was to prove programs correct). > The exact opposite. You can see it play out in the C vs C++ arena. C++ is essentially just a more complex C. But I trust modern C++ much more in terms of memory safety. I don't understand the logical implication. From the fact that there exists a complicating extension of a language that's safer in some practical way than the original you conclude that complexity always offers correctness benefits? This just doesn't follow logically, and you can immediately see it's false because Zig is both simpler and safer than C++ (and it's safer than C++ even if its simplicity had no correctness benefits at all).
- Sytten 1y ago
  So far I think the adoption in critical infrastructure (Linux, AWS, Windows, etc.) is clearly in Rust favor but I agree that something at some point will replace Rust. My belief is that more guardrails will end up winning no matter the language since the last 50 years of progamming have shown us we can't rely on humans to write bug free code and it is even worse with LLM.
conorbergin 1y ago
I think the problem with this attitude is the compiler becomes a middle manager you have to appease rather than a collaborator. Certainly there are advantages to having a manager, but if you go off the beaten track with Rust, you will not have a good time. I write most of my code in Zig these days and I think being able to segfault is a small price to pay to never have to see `Arc<RefCell<Foo<Bar<Whatever>>>` again.
- pron 1y ago
  Not to mention that `Arc` uses a GC (and not a stellar one, at that)...
  - veber-alex 1y ago
    Lol, what are you even trying to say here? Is Zig such an amazing language that while using it you won't ever need reference-counted pointers?
  - surajrmal 1y ago
    You can use alternative GC such as crossbeam if you want. You're not locked into using an Arc.
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  You can write rust without over-using traits. Regrettably, many rust libs and domains encourage patterns like that. One of the two biggest drawbacks of the rust ecosystem.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  How do you guard concurrent access in your multithreaded code? Due diligence every single time after the tenth refactor?
- surajrmal 1y ago
  I can't imagine writing c++ or c these days without static analysis or the various llvm sanitizers. I would think the same applies to zig. Rather than need these additional tools, rust gives you most of their benefits in the compiler. Being able to write bugs and have the code run isn't really something to boast about.
munchler 1y ago
Nit: I think you want crux in that phrase, not crust.
- Sytten 1y ago
  Thanks! Cant edit anymore, I guess I was feeling hungry this morning
Zambyte 1y ago
In practice, almost all memory safety related bugs caught by the Rust compiler are caught by the Zig safe build modes at run time. This is strictly worse in isolation, but when you factor in the fact that the rest of the language is much easier to reason about, the better C interop, the simple yet powerful metaprogramming, and the great built in testing tools, the tradeoffs start to become a lot more interesting.
- dnautics 1y ago
  catching at compile time is much better, though. there are plenty of strange situations that can happen that you'll not reach in runtime (for example, odds of running into a tripwire increase over time, things that can only happen after certain amount of memory fragmentation -- maybe you forgot an errdefer somewhere, etc.)
dnautics 1y ago
would you be satisfied if there was a static safety checker? (or if it were a compiler plugin that you trigger by running a slightly different command?). Note that zig compiles as a single object, so if you import a library and the library author does not do safety checking, your program would still do the safety checking if it doesn't cross a C abi boundary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_Z-aGbYm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_Z-aGbYm8

by Sytten 1y ago

pron 1y ago

Problem is, like they say the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions, the Rust compiler stops nine of every five memory safety issues. Put another way, while both Rust and Zig prevent memory safety issues, Zig does it with false negatives while Rust does it with false positives. This is by necessity when using the type system for that job, but it does come at a cost that disqualifies Rust for others... Nobody knows whether Rust and/or Zig themselves are the future of low-level programming, but I think it's likely that the future of low-level programming is that programmers who prefer one approach would use a Rust-like language, while those who prefer the other approach would use a Zig-like language. It will be intesting to see whether the preferences are evenly split, though, or one of them has a clear majority support.

tialaramex 1y ago
C++ already illustrates this idea you're talking about and we know exactly where this goes. Rust's false positives are annoying, so programmers are encouraged to further improve the borrowck and language features to reduce them. But the C++ or Zig false negatives just means your program malfunctions in unspecified ways and you may not even notice, so programmers are encouraged to introduce more and more such cases to the compiler. The drift over time is predictable, compared to ten years ago Rust has fewer false positives, C++ has more false negatives. You are correct to observe that there is no middle choice here, that's Rice's Theorem, non-trivial semantic correctness is Undecidable. But I would argue we already know what you're calling the "false positive" scenario is also not useful, we're just not at the point where people stop doing it anyway.
- pron 1y ago
  > C++ already illustrates this idea you're talking about and we know exactly where this goes. No, it doesn't. Zig is safer than C++ (and it's much simpler, which also has an effect on correctness). Making up some binary distinction and then deciding that because C++ falls on the same side of it as Zig (except it doesn't, because Zig eliminates out-of-bounds access to the same degree as Rust, not C++) then what applies to one must apply to the other. There is simply no justification to make that equivalence. > There is no middle choice here, that's Rice's Theorem, non-trivial semantic correctness is Undecidable. That's nothing to do with Rice's theorem. Proving some properties with the type system isn't a general algorithm; it's a proof you have to work for in every program you write individually. There are languages (Idris, ATS) that allow you to prove any correctness property using the type system, with no false positives. It's a matter of the effort required, and there's nothing binary about that. To get a sense of the theoretical effort (the practical effort is something to be measured empirically, over time) consider the set of all C programs and the effort it would take to rewrite an arbitrary selection of them in Rust (while maintaining similar performance and footprint characteristics). I believe the effort is larger than doing the same to translate a JS program to a Haskell program.
  - rowanG077 1y ago
    Unless you actually use the simplicity to apply formal methods I don't think simplicity make a language safer. The exact opposite. You can see it play out in the C vs C++ arena. C++ is essentially just a more complex C. But I trust modern C++ much more in terms of memory safety.
    - pron 1y ago
      > Unless you actually use the simplicity to apply formal methods I don't think simplicity make a language safer. That depends what you mean by "safer", but it is an empirical fact that unsound methods (like tests and code reviews) are extremely effective at preventing bugs, so the claim that formal methods are the only way is just wrong (and I say this as a formal methods guy, although formal methods have come a long way since the seventies, when we thought the point was to prove programs correct). > The exact opposite. You can see it play out in the C vs C++ arena. C++ is essentially just a more complex C. But I trust modern C++ much more in terms of memory safety. I don't understand the logical implication. From the fact that there exists a complicating extension of a language that's safer in some practical way than the original you conclude that complexity always offers correctness benefits? This just doesn't follow logically, and you can immediately see it's false because Zig is both simpler and safer than C++ (and it's safer than C++ even if its simplicity had no correctness benefits at all).
Sytten 1y ago
So far I think the adoption in critical infrastructure (Linux, AWS, Windows, etc.) is clearly in Rust favor but I agree that something at some point will replace Rust. My belief is that more guardrails will end up winning no matter the language since the last 50 years of progamming have shown us we can't rely on humans to write bug free code and it is even worse with LLM.

conorbergin 1y ago

I think the problem with this attitude is the compiler becomes a middle manager you have to appease rather than a collaborator. Certainly there are advantages to having a manager, but if you go off the beaten track with Rust, you will not have a good time. I write most of my code in Zig these days and I think being able to segfault is a small price to pay to never have to see `Arc<RefCell<Foo<Bar<Whatever>>>` again.

pron 1y ago
Not to mention that `Arc` uses a GC (and not a stellar one, at that)...
- veber-alex 1y ago
  Lol, what are you even trying to say here? Is Zig such an amazing language that while using it you won't ever need reference-counted pointers?
- surajrmal 1y ago
  You can use alternative GC such as crossbeam if you want. You're not locked into using an Arc.
the__alchemist 1y ago
You can write rust without over-using traits. Regrettably, many rust libs and domains encourage patterns like that. One of the two biggest drawbacks of the rust ecosystem.
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
How do you guard concurrent access in your multithreaded code? Due diligence every single time after the tenth refactor?
surajrmal 1y ago
I can't imagine writing c++ or c these days without static analysis or the various llvm sanitizers. I would think the same applies to zig. Rather than need these additional tools, rust gives you most of their benefits in the compiler. Being able to write bugs and have the code run isn't really something to boast about.

munchler 1y ago

Nit: I think you want crux in that phrase, not crust.

Sytten 1y ago
Thanks! Cant edit anymore, I guess I was feeling hungry this morning

Zambyte 1y ago

In practice, almost all memory safety related bugs caught by the Rust compiler are caught by the Zig safe build modes at run time. This is strictly worse in isolation, but when you factor in the fact that the rest of the language is much easier to reason about, the better C interop, the simple yet powerful metaprogramming, and the great built in testing tools, the tradeoffs start to become a lot more interesting.

dnautics 1y ago
catching at compile time is much better, though. there are plenty of strange situations that can happen that you'll not reach in runtime (for example, odds of running into a tripwire increase over time, things that can only happen after certain amount of memory fragmentation -- maybe you forgot an errdefer somewhere, etc.)

dnautics 1y ago

would you be satisfied if there was a static safety checker? (or if it were a compiler plugin that you trigger by running a slightly different command?). Note that zig compiles as a single object, so if you import a library and the library author does not do safety checking, your program would still do the safety checking if it doesn't cross a C abi boundary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_Z-aGbYm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_Z-aGbYm8