4 ms·

There are no 'unsafe' blocks in Fil-C. I think you trying to conflate 'unsafe blocks' with the fact that there might be compiler errors which might break 'safet

There are no 'unsafe' blocks in Fil-C. I think you trying to conflate 'unsafe blocks' with the fact that there might be compiler errors which might break 'safety'? Which is equally true in any system including Rust.

NobodyNada 2mo ago
Exactly, my point is that the compiler and runtime are the "unsafe" portions of Fil-C, and that Fil-C and (safe) Rust are equivalent in this regard.
quotemstr 2mo ago
Any safe system has unsafe parts. Quibbling about whether these parts are called "blocks" isn't useful. The term changes nothing.
- dundarious 2mo ago
  Pobody's Nerfect is not the mindset that led to Rust's innovations, nor Fil-C's. "Blocks" are relevant as they are how you express programs, algorithms, etc., that you need in order to get something done. Lots of data structures in Rust have a little unsafe somewhere. Users will typically depend on some "specialist" crate author to write them, but it exists, and is a necessary part of practical Rust programming. The pool of unsafety is open and by necessity growing. In Fil-C, no such specialists are needed, and the pool of unsafety is closed and fixed, no matter what programs, algorithms, data structures you use. This is not a trivial distinction I think. I think it's easy to acknowledge, especially given its (current) performance cost.
  - quotemstr 2mo ago
    That's a lot of words to say that the problem with Rust is that people you don't like are allowed to write unsafe code.
    - dundarious 2mo ago
      My god, you are insufferable, that's not my opinion at all. Just because I used quotation marks in one place, a practice that can convey multiple meanings, not all of which involve disdain. It's unfortunate that Rust, a good language that has more practical use than Fil-C, a language that I use more than Fil-C, has proselytizers such as you.
      - quotemstr 2mo ago
        Your argument is literally that there is too much unsafe code.

NobodyNada 2mo ago

Exactly, my point is that the compiler and runtime are the "unsafe" portions of Fil-C, and that Fil-C and (safe) Rust are equivalent in this regard.

quotemstr 2mo ago

Any safe system has unsafe parts. Quibbling about whether these parts are called "blocks" isn't useful. The term changes nothing.

dundarious 2mo ago
Pobody's Nerfect is not the mindset that led to Rust's innovations, nor Fil-C's. "Blocks" are relevant as they are how you express programs, algorithms, etc., that you need in order to get something done. Lots of data structures in Rust have a little unsafe somewhere. Users will typically depend on some "specialist" crate author to write them, but it exists, and is a necessary part of practical Rust programming. The pool of unsafety is open and by necessity growing. In Fil-C, no such specialists are needed, and the pool of unsafety is closed and fixed, no matter what programs, algorithms, data structures you use. This is not a trivial distinction I think. I think it's easy to acknowledge, especially given its (current) performance cost.
- quotemstr 2mo ago
  That's a lot of words to say that the problem with Rust is that people you don't like are allowed to write unsafe code.
  - dundarious 2mo ago
    My god, you are insufferable, that's not my opinion at all. Just because I used quotation marks in one place, a practice that can convey multiple meanings, not all of which involve disdain. It's unfortunate that Rust, a good language that has more practical use than Fil-C, a language that I use more than Fil-C, has proselytizers such as you.
    - quotemstr 2mo ago
      Your argument is literally that there is too much unsafe code.