2 ms·

It's interesting to consider that the same question would've surely come up during C and C++ language development, but that the answer is informed by the impact

It's interesting to consider that the same question would've surely come up during C and C++ language development, but that the answer is informed by the impact on the ecosystem, which was dramatically different when C, C++, and Rust were all being developed.

tialaramex 2mo ago
I don't think it would "surely come up". The C++ community is very comfortable with "Don't do that" as the lesson even though it's not actionable. Like I said, safety is cultural. You can invent this stuff, somebody did, but the way most people end up doing it isn't because they all spontaneously invented the same solution, it was absorbed from their culture. C++ culture says "Don't do that" all the time instinctively. An actual concrete objection to fixing it might be offered if you insist on one, but they start with "Don't do that". Sorting is my go-to example. Rust's sorts are safe. If I sort "Alligator", "Baboon", "Cat", "Donkey" then no matter what my ordering rule was nothing crazy happens. If my rule was nonsense, like "Every item is before every other item" then Rust might panic, it is allowed to do that - but otherwise it just will give me back the same four items but who knows what order because my ordering rule is nonsense. That seems easy enough, right? In C++ if my ordering rule does not meet the precise requirements of the C++ language then all bets are off, that's Undefined Behaviour. I might get back "Cat", "Cat", "Cat", "Cat" even though there was originally only a single cat, or it might scribble past the end of my list of animals, crash, or anything at all. And while it would be permissible for real C++ standard library implementations to do better, on the whole they don't. "Don't do that" is the answer if you ask why this defect is allowed.

2 ms·

It's interesting to consider that the same question would've surely come up during C and C++ language development, but that the answer is informed by the impact

by dwattttt 2mo ago

tialaramex 2mo ago
I don't think it would "surely come up". The C++ community is very comfortable with "Don't do that" as the lesson even though it's not actionable. Like I said, safety is cultural. You can invent this stuff, somebody did, but the way most people end up doing it isn't because they all spontaneously invented the same solution, it was absorbed from their culture. C++ culture says "Don't do that" all the time instinctively. An actual concrete objection to fixing it might be offered if you insist on one, but they start with "Don't do that". Sorting is my go-to example. Rust's sorts are safe. If I sort "Alligator", "Baboon", "Cat", "Donkey" then no matter what my ordering rule was nothing crazy happens. If my rule was nonsense, like "Every item is before every other item" then Rust might panic, it is allowed to do that - but otherwise it just will give me back the same four items but who knows what order because my ordering rule is nonsense. That seems easy enough, right? In C++ if my ordering rule does not meet the precise requirements of the C++ language then all bets are off, that's Undefined Behaviour. I might get back "Cat", "Cat", "Cat", "Cat" even though there was originally only a single cat, or it might scribble past the end of my list of animals, crash, or anything at all. And while it would be permissible for real C++ standard library implementations to do better, on the whole they don't. "Don't do that" is the answer if you ask why this defect is allowed.