Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#251

Post by burntsushi » Mon, Sep 11, 2017, 10:18 PM UTC

Const-me wrote: post #228

burntsushi wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is, C++ allows composing these containers making higher-level ones, such as this indexed array example. What I---and others---are trying to tell you is that it's perfectly possible in Rust too. I don't think you've pointed out anything that isn't possible in Rust. My previous comment was exactly about composing containers to make higher-level ones. Have you tried building such things? Did you get stuck? M…

> I don't see any reason why implementing a free list in Rust wouldn't be possible either. Is placement new available in rust stable?

Why do you think placement new is necessary to implement a free list?

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#252

Post by rurban » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 11:10 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #250

rurban wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The major motivation not to use it was _FORTIFY_SOURCE with it's compile checks for compile-time known buffer sizes and it's accompanying _chk functions. This leaves out all dynamic buffers. You cannot mix PTR + LONG args without serious compile-time errors

I don't have any idea how _FORTIFY_SOURCE works, other than it is GCC specific and as such no place in ANSI C. What I know is that having something like strcpy_s() does not provide any actual safety, because with the prototype "strcpy_s(char * restrict s1, rsize_t s1max, const char * restrict s2)" there is no guarantee that s1max is a valid size for s1 .

This is what the _chk functions do. In most cases it know the compile-time size of s1. But in dynamic cases the _s functions are far better than the truncating 'n' versions. Read the rationale.

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#253

Post by speedplane » Sat, Sep 16, 2017, 9:26 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #241

speedplane wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What year did Borland make that call? I remember my HS programming class in the late 1990s used a Borland compiler and development environment. I don't recall it being "enterprisey" at the time. That being said I was in HS, and likely associated the word "enterprise" with starships more than big companies.

When they re-braded themselves as Inprise, 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borland

Hmm... I first touched a Borland compiler in the 1998-99 school year. I had programmed before that, but it was my first time programming a GUI with the Win32 APIs. I made a Battleship game with a very rudimentary AI so you could play against the computer. Not sure if Borland was good or evil at the time, but those memories will certainly endear me to them.