And the death of FreeBSD
But as Ada is STRONGLY standardized (for compilers allowed to be named Ada), if the above-mentioned problems/risks becomes no problem, Ada can be the best candidate for memory-safe alternative.
Its been 52 years. Any day now!
Looking at this from the direction of C/C++, the compiler can enforce many of the same rules as the Rust language with most of the same advantages and annoyances.
I started learning Rust (my colleagues and I have to convince the company management not to rush into rewriting “everything” in Rust, but to stay in C and C++ for now). I haven’t made much progress (so far here - https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html), but I don’t see a single advantage compared to C, much less compared to C++.
That's interesting. Usually its the exact opposite way round. The juniors pining for Rust and management telling them to just conform to industry standards.my colleagues and I have to convince the company management not to rush into rewriting “everything” in Rust, but to stay in C and C++ for now.
Our company's management is 20 years younger than us (the developers)That's interesting. Usually its the exact opposite way round. The juniors pining for Rust and management telling them to just conform to industry standards.
If they are the ones that hired you guys, they are smart. They hired the experience that they don't have. SAF.Our company's management is 20 years younger than us (the developers)
They are young *and* juniors. That sounds like an interesting dynamic to haveOur company's management is 20 years younger than us (the developers)
The extra work of having to type Shift-1 to get a redundant exclamation mark seems pedantic to me. The language is ugly as hell. I'm avoiding it like the plague while I can.
It does look pretty ugly.To me it's brain-damaged to put an exclamation mark after a function call like this:
println!("Hello, world!");
template <typename A>
void println(const A& _a)
{ ... }
[...]
println<std::string>("Hello World");
println("Hello World"); // template argument can be automatically inferred
Not defending it, but it's a macro.To me it's brain-damaged to put an exclamation mark after a function call like this:
println!("Hello, world!");
The extra work of having to type Shift-1 to get a redundant exclamation mark seems pedantic to me. The language is ugly as hell. I'm avoiding it like the plague while I can.
How did they manage to make a language uglier than C++?
POSIX, as well as Win32, the fundamental operating system interfaces, perpetuate the single most costly mistake in the history of computing, which is the zero-terminated string. (source)
null
is a billion-dollar mistake.To me it's brain-damaged to put an exclamation mark after a function call like this:
println!("Hello, world!");
Certainly not alone. Which is pretty much why they are the first things C++ "fixed" decades ago. std::string and references&.I've felt similarly for so long, glad not to feel alone on this.
These things are hard to quantify, but evidentlynull
is a billion-dollar mistake.
See how efficient C++ is with memory? What? Sure, I'll get my coat...I became an instant hater of C++ references the first time I had to use an std::map. I was checking for the existence of a particular key, and to my astonishment, every C++ map contains every possible key.
It's an aesthetic judgment, and as such: superficial and subjective. Rust code just looks ugly to me. I can't help it. =/That's a pretty superficial criticism. Also it's a macro, not a function call - here's a decent discussion of why.
To be fair, I'm the guy who originally responded to Ruby with "this doesn't even have semicolons, I can't take it seriously." Then put together a solid decade+ professional run with it.
I read the article - and it offers technical reasoning whyThese things are hard to quantify, but evidentlynull
is a billion-dollar mistake.
null
references were a mistake to create/use. But it offers no financial analysis whatsoever, just an assumption casually thrown out by the speaker as random ballpark guesses.Read "a billion dollar mistake" as "a very very expensive mistake". The modern equivalent of "myriad".I read the article - and it offers technical reasoning whynull
references were a mistake to create/use. But it offers no financial analysis whatsoever, just an assumption casually thrown out by the speaker as random ballpark guesses.