Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

ayende.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 272 posts

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#141

Post by jolux »

netr0ute wrote: post #135
rowanG077 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly memory unsafe languages shouldn't be used with exception of very few corner cases. It's the same reason why we no longer allow cars without seatbelts. You don't go around saying that seatbelts shouldn't be mandatory because you don't need them.

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

I’m allowed to have opinions about what tools should be used for what. I think it’s fair to say you shouldn’t write a production HTTP service in assembly, for example.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#142

Post by lawl »

ansible wrote: post #118
lawl wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you are correct about go, it doesn’t give the programmer enough control to be used at that level. What I like about go is that I can go full unsafe.Pointer if i want to, and do whatever I want. The other thing I really like, is that they did such a good job discouraging it that i frequently hear people complain about go having pointers but not even letting you have fun with them. The problem isn't that go doesn…

> Still waiting for someone to make "go but with ownership and borrow checker" That would have interested me more a few years ago, but I'm deeply invested in Rust these days. Is that all you'd change about Go? One of the reasons I moved was the error handling and lack of generics. Go has fixed the latter, but I can't stand not having Result and Option these days. The '?' is awesome too.

> Is that all you'd change about Go?

No, go has plenty of warts, like every language (ever formatted a date in go?). I just don't like kitchen sink languages.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#143

Post by tonyg »

netr0ute wrote: post #135
rowanG077 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly memory unsafe languages shouldn't be used with exception of very few corner cases. It's the same reason why we no longer allow cars without seatbelts. You don't go around saying that seatbelts shouldn't be mandatory because you don't need them.

What's with this obsession about what other people do? You don't have to use a memory unsafe language, but others might.

A person's actions sometimes have effects on other people. Such as not wearing a mask, for example. Or writing some piece of obscure but critical infrastructure with a memory vulnerability that causes all someone's precious apes to be stolen.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#144

Post by 3a2d29 »

lawl wrote: post #76
celeritascelery wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust still considers itself a “systems programming language” . They are moving Rust into the Linux kernel and android drivers. It doesn’t get any more “systems programming” then that. But you are correct about go, it doesn’t give the programmer enough control to be used at that level.

> But you are correct about go, it doesn’t give the programmer enough control to be used at that level. What I like about go is that I can go full unsafe.Pointer if i want to, and do whatever I want. The other thing I really like, is that they did such a good job discouraging it that i frequently hear people complain about go having pointers but not even letting you have fun with them. The problem isn't that go doesn…

> “go but with ownership and borrow checker”

Wouldn’t this be just a lesser version of rust then? If someone makes a new language and wants it to catch on, it needs new ideas. Not just nice simple syntax mixed with something someone else is already doing.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#145

Post by darthcoder1010 »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #100

Why do people spend so much energy shooting down a language nobody uses? If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. I would hate to be the creator of Hare and get so much crap for simply daring to exist. He is making a language he likes and wants to use. There are probably some people who like it and find it useful. Good for them! A lot of us have dreams of building our own language. He is following his passions…

> I would hate to be the creator of Hare and get so much crap for simply daring to exist.

Certainly.

Since the announce of Hare I've seen __too__ much criticism IMHO.

I think the authors have stated clearly the intentions and the features of the language: They just want a slightly better C. Of course you may not like it, but no need to be that harsh...

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#146

Post by HL33tibCe7 »

samhw wrote: post #111
jolux wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t need more memory-unsafe languages with no generics and no functional programming. We just don’t. If it were a toy project for learning and pedagogical purposes that’s one thing but for code that’s supposed to be used in production it’s useless.

> for code that’s supposed to be used in production it’s useless Then ... don't use it. Others can use it and see what they learn from it, or even whether they find it productive to build stuff with. Even Brainfuck and Malbolge have devoted users who enjoy the challenges they pose, so I can promise you there's room enough in the world for this language. Let's just have some camomile tea and calm down a little.

Except maybe one day I'll be using some software written in Hare which will mess up and have negative implications for me.

Furthermore, it could be argued that our time could be spent more productively than on a language like Hare.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#147

Post by lawl »

3a2d29 wrote: post #144
lawl wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you are correct about go, it doesn’t give the programmer enough control to be used at that level. What I like about go is that I can go full unsafe.Pointer if i want to, and do whatever I want. The other thing I really like, is that they did such a good job discouraging it that i frequently hear people complain about go having pointers but not even letting you have fun with them. The problem isn't that go doesn…

> “go but with ownership and borrow checker” Wouldn’t this be just a lesser version of rust then? If someone makes a new language and wants it to catch on, it needs new ideas. Not just nice simple syntax mixed with something someone else is already doing.

> Wouldn’t this be just a lesser version of rust then?

That depends if you consider C++ an upgrade over C :)

Many flamewars have been had on this topic and i think it's just a matter of personal taste.

I'm firmly in the less is more camp.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#148

Post by tlamponi »

mh7 wrote: post #68
nynx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the embedded world, it’s becoming less justifiable to use C when your platform supports rust.

rust doesn't offer much value for embedded (mcu, bare metal, tiny stuff) imo. No allocation = no leaks, no use after free, no dangling pointers. No multi core = no atomics or concurrency to worry about. Ring buffers solve 99% of my interrupt data sharing = no need to worry about synchronization. Bounds/safety checks? Need to run and test release builds most of the time because of space/memory constraints.

> No allocation = no leaks, no use after free, no dangling pointers.

Often you don't allocate because it's not a necessity and a PITA due to C, but with rust I see no point in not using a tiny allocator if one has a few 100 KiB of RAM - totally depends on the project and target platform.

> No multi core = no atomics or concurrency to worry about.

There are interrupts though and those just need the same mechanisms than multicore and can be a PITA to manage in C. Besides that, there are quite a few cheap multicore embedded CPUs available now.

You can encode safety checks like pull-down/up clashes and the like nicely via the rust type system, that alone makes it a major benefit over C.

For example, from the rust embedded book:

    One can also statically check that operations, like setting a pin low,
    can only be performed on correctly configured peripherals.
    For example, trying to change the output state of a pin configured in
    floating input mode would raise a compile error.
-- https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/static-guarantees/index....

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#149

Post by sounds »

jmmv wrote: post #128
socialdemocrat wrote: post #100

Why do people spend so much energy shooting down a language nobody uses? If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. I would hate to be the creator of Hare and get so much crap for simply daring to exist. He is making a language he likes and wants to use. There are probably some people who like it and find it useful. Good for them! A lot of us have dreams of building our own language. He is following his passions…

> Why do people spend so much energy shooting down a language nobody uses? If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. Because this language isn't made by a nobody. It's made by a popular person with a following, so the language _will_ get used by a non-insignificant number of people. And those people _will_ (re)implement all the things that you want a language to have (database connections, networking libraries,…

But why be the one to shoot it down?

If the industry makes mistakes, that's not news.

Re: Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

#150

Post by Atalocke »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #100

Why do people spend so much energy shooting down a language nobody uses? If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. I would hate to be the creator of Hare and get so much crap for simply daring to exist. He is making a language he likes and wants to use. There are probably some people who like it and find it useful. Good for them! A lot of us have dreams of building our own language. He is following his passions…

> There are probably some people who like it and find it useful.

I've really been enjoying Hare. As a primary Go/Rust developer its syntax and limitations feel like what I've been looking for and it's youth predicates plenty of opportunity to work on new project. When I was working on a ANSI Colors lib [0] last night I spent a lot of time in the community IRC. Your post is basically what everyone's feeling. This is a language designed for people who like it's style. It doesn't need to have this or that feature. And if the community changes their mind, what better candidate than an open source tight-knit young language?

[0] https://github.com/tristanisham/color

Post reply on HN