reecko

6 ms·

1.
by reecko 5y ago
Throwing ad-hominems at people criticising your language is not a good long term strategy, though it might appear to work for a while. Not only there was not any "mentions multiple GC and non-GC languages" in the comment I replied
2.
by reecko 5y ago
Fair enough. I felt compelled to post in this thread because I've seen the "ban unsafe languages" sentiment expressed several times here and on Reddit before (especially on r/rust I remember reading some comments that ha
3.
by reecko 5y ago
That is a neat attempt at making it appear like I am somehow deluded and am imagining Rust evangelism. The person I replied to made a comment down thread that literally states that Rust must be given a free pass despite `unsafe` blocks on t
4.
by reecko 5y ago
No, that is why I wrote "subtle implication" there. Unfortunately on online forums, the term "memory-safety" (which is a well-defined term in computer science), is nowadays almost always used in contexts of Rust evangeli
5.
by reecko 5y ago
Your point might make sense for web facing software because programs where lives are actually at stake are written in Ada or a subset of C with rigorous static analysis and engineering processes. Now, it can't be denied that C and C++
6.
by reecko 5y ago
> To have GC where it makes sense and doesn't add too much overhead but allowing non-GC objects that require a bit more care and where you know you need to free memory yourself or using some basic smart_ptr-style tracking object? D
7.
by reecko 5y ago
One thing that helps OCaml here is that it requires definitions to precede usage (like C/C++). Go and most other languages don't have this requirement. Perhaps, this results in faster symbol table lookups. Moreover, OCaml boxes ev
8.
by reecko 5y ago
> OCaml is much faster than Go in the bytecode mode But doesn't the compiled code run slower in bytecode mode? I think that counts.
9.
by reecko 5y ago
> Shared ownership is code smell to me regardless of the language This is an unsubstantiated claim. If Rust makes something hard, that doesn't automatically make it universally bad. Nearly every large Rust code base I've seen u
10.
by reecko 5y ago
This is actually funny because unlike C++, Rust doesn't have true immutable types. Instead Rust restricts mutability in two ways. One is immutable bindings , and the other is the shared references. Your `unique_ptr` is example is how
11.
by reecko 5y ago
It is a pity that none of the replies to this comment has actually clarified your doubts... Assuming the absence of `const_cast`, C++'s `const` ensures that a data of the particular type doesn't get modified. That's it. Rust