3 ms·

I think it's worrying if language design ever becomes about having higher and higher level features 'protecting' the programmer from making mistakes, at the cos

I think it's worrying if language design ever becomes about having higher and higher level features 'protecting' the programmer from making mistakes, at the cost of losing access to lower level features that are considered harmful. Higher level features are much better than a GOTO 99% of the time, but there's always going to be 1% of the time when a GOTO might be better.

derefr 12y ago
There's no need for the two things to be at odds. Look at Rust's unsafe blocks, for example—or C's asm blocks, for that matter. A language can let you have your cake (or safety), and eat it (or skirt it) too.
IndianAstronaut 12y ago
Protecting the programmer is a good sell to corporations though. Less chance of error prone production code, easier for people to develop with, etc.
- alexchamberlain 12y ago
  The same corporations that use the Linux kernel, various database engines and various language runtimes, all of which contain C or C++, many platform specific byte manipulations and various other unsafe features?
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Have you used Linux lately? It's always close to falling apart, in my experience. That the developers are doing a heroic job of keeping all the unsafe parts under control does not mean this is a good idea for the rest of us.
    - alexchamberlain 12y ago
      I use it daily, both personally, for development and in production. Performs better than commercial nix and Windows IMHO; cannot comment on BSDs or Mac.