Viewing profile — mattwilsonn888

If you have to work in a language or framework with a lot of arbitrary-seeming features, ugly or opaque translation layers, or a lot of boiler-plate, then I absolutely understand t…

Why not? The individual grunt knows it is more productive and the managers tolerate a non-zero amount of risk with incompetent or disgruntled workers anyways. If you have clean acc…

Except, and you would know this if you skimmed the article, this headline query is being used sardonically.

The issue with this model in the most general sense is that it is zero-sum, and at the limit it doesn't provide hardly any security. I delay the use of updated software by a week, …

As if you can make that judgement for others. Don't do this next time.

Do I have to put the pieces together for you? What is the relevant skill in programming? Problem solving. It's not aim or timing or hand-eye coordination lmao.

It's called simplicity. Not every single semantic element in the language needs to be a type. `for i in 0.. This isn't "magic," it's a loop that initializes a value `i` and checks …

Because a primary function of the chair is the same to programming languages: ergonomics. That is obviously true, otherwise we'd code in assembly and type in UTF-8 byte codes.

Implying that correctness necessitates a lack of ergonomics is deeply flawed. The distinction between correctness and safety is that safety is willing to suffer false positives, in…

Your earlier point that languages exist that are safer than Rust but not less ergonomic is irrelevant - that's the point I made. One can fail, or artificially make a language less …

Well it is arguably Rust's worst issue and it has remained it for most of its life. Are you really going to try and convince people that this is completely incidental and not a res…

Let me be more clear: the cognitive overhead is real, and does go away with less constraining languages. If that doesn't disagree with your previous point then I misread it. And I …

I don't use Zig, but I can answer your questions: Because Zig is a better language across the board. And that includes safety. You can have a language that doesn't do heavy static-…

To contradict you: avoiding false positives (programmer is correct, compilation fails anyways) by refactoring code into the second or third best design, is exactly the type of cogn…

I would be interested to read the debates that stems from this point.

I think you are clearly good-faith. The issue is the underlying and unfair assumption that is so common in these debates: that the memory-unsafe language we're comparing against Ru…

*Under the assumption that you are maximizing both. I often hear complaints that Rust's semantics actually haven't maximized ergonomics, even factoring in the added difficulty it f…

This is incredibly misleading (technically true maybe) and you know it. Rust has slower compile times for the sake of safety, it's a tradeoff you shouldn't be ashamed of. I didn't …

Try and appreciate the humor in what you're replying to without fully discounting the point of it.

We're talking about Zig not C. Same argument will apply to Odin. These modern approaches are not languages that result in constant memory-safety issues like you imply.

This is true for every language. Logic bugs exist. I'll take good OS process isolation over 'written-in-Rust' though I wouldn't mind both. That being said, you've missed the point …

It's an amazing piece of marketing to corner anyone who dislikes a certain hassle as being mentally deficient - that's what "skill issue" means in this context.

No. It is not an invisible safeguard - it yaps and significantly increases compile time and (a matter of great debate) development effort. It is a helmet, just accept it. Helmets a…

As long as the audience accepts the framing that ergonomics doesn't matter because it can't be quantified, the hand-waving exemplified above will confound. "This chair is guarantee…