4 ms·
> But you did the same thing when, I do not go around posting "omg Rust is SO MUCH BETTER than zig or fil-c, which are TRASH." I talk about engineering tradeof
by steveklabnik 3mo ago
> But you did the same thing when,
I do not go around posting "omg Rust is SO MUCH BETTER than zig or fil-c, which are TRASH." I talk about engineering tradeoffs, and what matters to me personally. I do not say "if you use Zig, you are a bad person." I am not saying that any comparison is bad. I am saying that the way that the comparison is presented is bad. That is different.
> you declared the exact compromise that Rust makes "table stakes"
Table stakes for me.
> Zig improves on C's memory safety when it comes to spatial safety,
I agree that it's an improvement on C!
> yet you excluded it.
I said that it is not pursuing a design that I personally find compelling enough to use to write software. That doesn't mean that I think it's worthless. This whole thing started off with me talking about how much I respect the Zig project! Yet you're trying to turn this into something where I'm talking shit. I presented a specific technical tradeoff that is important to me. That is very different.
> You're trying to draw some hard line on a spectrum that passes exactly between Rust and Zig, and I'm trying to say that that line isn't there (your attempt at a definition of delineating safe and unsafe code also applies to C)
I don't believe you've shown that. And my "attempt" does apply to C: it fails the bar, because it does not delineate between a safe subset and an unsafe superset.
> you may argue that you're only talking about "memory safety" and not correctness in general,
I am in fact talking about "memory safety" and have been this whole time, yes.
> what gives memory safety value is that violations are causes of many dangerous vulnerabilities; but once, say, Java eliminates all of them, 100% of bugs/vulnerability - which are still numerous - will be caused by other problems, all potentially avoidable with ATS, so why isn't ATS table stakes?
This is just an entirely different question. Yes, there are other forms of safety that are important too. That's just not what we're talking about here.
- pron 3mo ago> Table stakes for me. Ok, so if you meant "table stakes" as an expression of a personal preference and suitability to the programs you write without making an unsupported universal claim such as "this leads to better correctness" or "the price is almost always worth it" then we're good :) > Yes, there are other forms of safety that are important too. The thing is that they can be at least equally important, and some affordances for memory safety could potentially _harm_ them. To me, Rust offers little safety in the programs I want to write in a low-level language, but the price it charges in language complexity and implicitness ends up in a negative balance (I can't prove it, of course; as I said, software correctness is very complicated, and some of the greatest researchers in the field were proven wrong on how to best achieve it).
- eaurouge 2mo ago> I do not go around posting "omg Rust is SO MUCH BETTER than zig or fil-c, which are TRASH." > While I still don't plan to write software in it, given that I believe memory safety is table stakes What exactly am I missing? You know you don't have to hijack Zig threads (repeatedly) with your thoughts on memory safety, right?
- steveklabnik 2mo ago> What exactly am I missing? My point in bringing this up is to strengthen my compliment. Even though I disagree with aspects of Zig's design, the stuff talked about in this post is excellent.
- mbrock 2mo ago> I do not go around posting "omg Rust is SO MUCH BETTER than zig or fil-c, which are TRASH." I talk about engineering tradeoffs, and what matters to me personally. I do not say "if you use Zig, you are a bad person." I am not saying that any comparison is bad. I am saying that the way that the comparison is presented is bad. That is different. Oh, who is saying things like that? Do you mean to imply that this kind of vitriol is characteristic of the Fil-C project?
- steveklabnik 2mo agoYes, this kind of rhetoric comes out of the project itself and its supporters, regularly.
- pizlonator 2mo agoSteve, be reasonable. I never said Fil-C is “so much better” (let alone with all caps) than anything. I never called Rust “trash”. I think you’re taking this all too personally
- steveklabnik 2mo agoI will let others be the judge by reading what you've written.
- iczero 2mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49097320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49097320 You think this is reasonable? I have also seen strange people on twitter support Fil-C while claiming that Rust is a language for [slur]s. I suppose by your "reasoning" that these people directly represent you and your project?