3 ms·

(Disclaimer: FB employee.) Do you also argue that C++ is built on top of a crumbling foundation, because it's based on C, a ancient language with almost no typ

(Disclaimer: FB employee.) Do you also argue that C++ is built on top of a crumbling foundation, because it's based on C, a ancient language with almost no type-safety?

bluetech 13y ago
Why do you say C has no type safety? Only way around the type system is void, explicit casts and I guess unions. It admittedly doesn't have a very advanced type system, that's true.
- munificent 13y ago
  > Only way around the type system is void, explicit casts and I guess unions. And typedefs. Given that there's no parametric types, you run into void* quite frequently as well, so saying "only" inaccurately minimizes the scale of how much C code isn't strictly type safe.
  - bluetech 13y ago
    Right, void* is used quite a lot for "generic" data structures. But I'm not sure that's what he meant. The reason I said "only" was that from my own experience, most C data structures are tailored for a specific use and so I don't see void* too much in this context. And may I ask why you say "typedef" is unsafe? It is merely a type alias, like e.g. Haskell's and ML's "type", or isn't it?
    - munificent 13y ago
      > It is merely a type alias, like e.g. Haskell's and ML's "type", or isn't it? It is, but it freely allows conversion between the aliased types. typedef int Feet; typedef int Meters; int main() { Feet height = 6; Meters inEngland = height; // <-- OK. :( }
      - anaphor 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure you and the parent were thinking of Haskell's `newtype` not `type` λ> :{ Prelude| type Feet = Int Prelude| type Metres = Int Prelude| :} λ> let a = 5 :: Feet λ> let b = 4 :: Metres λ> :t a a :: Feet λ> :t b b :: Metres λ> a + b 9 λ> let f = id :: Feet -> Feet λ> f b 4
azth 13y ago
C++ attempted to fix type safety issues in C.
reikonomusha 13y ago
You don't need to add a disclaimer about your workplace. It doesn't contribute at all to your question. I do not think C is a "crumbling foundation". I would not suggest that C be used for large scale engineering efforts, but it's a relatively well-defined language with semantics dictated by a formal standard. A lot of research has gone into C compilers, which are state-of-the-art. With that said, one of the biggest complaints I hear about C++ is that it still has the legacy of C embedded in it.

(Disclaimer: FB employee.) Do you also argue that C++ is built on top of a crumbling foundation, because it's based on C, a ancient language with almost no type-safety?

bluetech 13y ago

Why do you say C has no type safety? Only way around the type system is void, explicit casts and I guess unions. It admittedly doesn't have a very advanced type system, that's true.

munificent 13y ago
> Only way around the type system is void, explicit casts and I guess unions. And typedefs. Given that there's no parametric types, you run into void* quite frequently as well, so saying "only" inaccurately minimizes the scale of how much C code isn't strictly type safe.
- bluetech 13y ago
  Right, void* is used quite a lot for "generic" data structures. But I'm not sure that's what he meant. The reason I said "only" was that from my own experience, most C data structures are tailored for a specific use and so I don't see void* too much in this context. And may I ask why you say "typedef" is unsafe? It is merely a type alias, like e.g. Haskell's and ML's "type", or isn't it?
  - munificent 13y ago
    > It is merely a type alias, like e.g. Haskell's and ML's "type", or isn't it? It is, but it freely allows conversion between the aliased types. typedef int Feet; typedef int Meters; int main() { Feet height = 6; Meters inEngland = height; // <-- OK. :( }
    - anaphor 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure you and the parent were thinking of Haskell's `newtype` not `type` λ> :{ Prelude| type Feet = Int Prelude| type Metres = Int Prelude| :} λ> let a = 5 :: Feet λ> let b = 4 :: Metres λ> :t a a :: Feet λ> :t b b :: Metres λ> a + b 9 λ> let f = id :: Feet -> Feet λ> f b 4

azth 13y ago

C++ attempted to fix type safety issues in C.

reikonomusha 13y ago

You don't need to add a disclaimer about your workplace. It doesn't contribute at all to your question. I do not think C is a "crumbling foundation". I would not suggest that C be used for large scale engineering efforts, but it's a relatively well-defined language with semantics dictated by a formal standard. A lot of research has gone into C compilers, which are state-of-the-art. With that said, one of the biggest complaints I hear about C++ is that it still has the legacy of C embedded in it.