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

OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

dpldocs.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 322 posts

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#311

Post by dequan »

pjmlp wrote: post #296
dequan wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire JIT, garbage collector and most of the C#'s VM are all implemented in C++. This has caused various issues in the past which are exploitable from managed code. The amount of unsafe code used to implement C# vastly outweighs the amount in Rust's standard library.

If you are going that way, Rust's reference compiler is dependent on LLVM, fully written in C++, and the C++ semantics of bitcode have broken Rust's code generation multiple times, forcing regressions and newer compiler releases with desactivated optimization features. Also plenty of crates are bindings to C and C++ libraries with nice unsafe blocks. Then was that Axium drama.

Hmm? Dotnet on Linux uses LLVM for codegen so that seems to be a wash. Lots of nuget packages are wrappers around native libraries as well.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#312

Post by pjmlp »

dequan wrote: post #311
pjmlp wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going that way, Rust's reference compiler is dependent on LLVM, fully written in C++, and the C++ semantics of bitcode have broken Rust's code generation multiple times, forcing regressions and newer compiler releases with desactivated optimization features. Also plenty of crates are bindings to C and C++ libraries with nice unsafe blocks. Then was that Axium drama.

Hmm? Dotnet on Linux uses LLVM for codegen so that seems to be a wash. Lots of nuget packages are wrappers around native libraries as well.

Yeah, doesn't make Rust's dependency on C++ go away for its safety.

The point is the "look at what I say, not what I do", when talking about safe languages and dependencies into C and C++ libraries and compiler toolchains.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#313

Post by dequan »

pjmlp wrote: post #312
dequan wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm? Dotnet on Linux uses LLVM for codegen so that seems to be a wash. Lots of nuget packages are wrappers around native libraries as well.

Yeah, doesn't make Rust's dependency on C++ go away for its safety. The point is the "look at what I say, not what I do", when talking about safe languages and dependencies into C and C++ libraries and compiler toolchains.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with GP's incorrect assertion that C# is somehow safer than Rust.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#314

Post by dequan »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #302
dequan wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense, WG21 is committed to ensuring C++ has more warts and sharp edges than any other language on the planet.

I don't agree. Rust very much wants to be a C++ alternative in all (I mean all) respects.

Not really. The lack of fields in traits or a classical inheritance system is pretty strongly missed by some people coming from C++.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#315

Post by pjmlp »

dequan wrote: post #313
pjmlp wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, doesn't make Rust's dependency on C++ go away for its safety. The point is the "look at what I say, not what I do", when talking about safe languages and dependencies into C and C++ libraries and compiler toolchains.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with GP's incorrect assertion that C# is somehow safer than Rust.

It has to do with yours incorrect assertion that using C++ in the runtime is a disadvantage for C# in regards to Rust, which equally depends on C++, in both of its compilers toolchains, rustc and gcc-rs.

When Rust gets fully bootstrapped in self hosted toolchain you'll have a point.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#316

Post by fsckboy »

Conscat wrote: post #239
eklavya wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should take this to the security team although I have a hunch that they'll think I am full of shit. What with the CVE count never going down with asan, ubsan, tsan and all kinds of guidelines, analyzers, tests and what not.

Hungarian notation has never been proven to reduce errors compared to strong types, and the CppCoreGuidelines tell you not to use it. clang-tidy can largely automate Hungarian notation, at least.

the goal of hungarian is to ease/automate the cognitive burden on the programmer while in the act of reading or writing code, it's the semantic notion, not the syntactic

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#317

Post by littlestymaar »

aldanor wrote: post #148
nicoburns wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust syntax isn’t really that novel. It’s not exactly like C, but most of its syntax is pulled from some popular language: some from C, some from JS, some from Python, some from ruby, etc.

A lot more from ocaml than js/Python/ruby.

Lots of concepts come from Ocaml, but syntax-wise, Rust is closer to JS than to anything else.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#318

Post by dequan »

pjmlp wrote: post #315
dequan wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with GP's incorrect assertion that C# is somehow safer than Rust.

It has to do with yours incorrect assertion that using C++ in the runtime is a disadvantage for C# in regards to Rust, which equally depends on C++, in both of its compilers toolchains, rustc and gcc-rs. When Rust gets fully bootstrapped in self hosted toolchain you'll have a point.

I think you've missed my point entirely but that's fine.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#320

Post by orangeboats »

foobarian wrote: post #252
oaw-bct-ar-bamf wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not help you today with your immediate problem but think about it this way: You become the boss or responsible for some product. If you decide at the beginning to start off using Rust or rewrite some ancient, unmaintained library using Rust, then you prevent people like your cowboy developer to mess stuff up with this category of faults. Either you would not hire him in the first place because he never came…

If the cowboy developer is the boss they can still just wrap everything in unsafe blocks. But I think I'd take that over the C++ new/delete/malloc/free salad.

At least `unsafe` blocks tend to raise other people's eyebrows rather quickly. The word itself is telling you to take a double take after all.

Some rather "questionable" C/C++ code can, and are missed during code review sessions. One could put the blame on code reviewers, but let's be honest, code reviewing is a mindnumbing task for many of us.

Post reply on HN