11–20 of 49 posts
Fwiw andrewk seems to be deleting comments that criticize this approach. Not a good look on his part.
And now I see a bunch more comments that are just utterly toxic, which I also expect will be deleted.
Serious comments seem to be kept, even when they’re sceptical.
Zig main dev proposes to introduce a Fil-C like compilation mode to make zig safe: it's only natural to mention how that's different from Rust, right? What about all the other languages, Andrew? I'm tired to see zig head people trying to diss Rust whenever they can. It's annoying for people that enjoy both languages and it's really a hint of how toxic the zig community is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about a strictly-enforced form of run-time memory safety where there's no `unsafe` escape hatch that a careless programmer can misuse to undermine the memory safety mechanism. Contrasting with Rust is helpful to get that point across - which the body text of the issue does. I can't speak for Andrew, but I didn't read this as a "diss" at all.
Sure, the point makes sense but if that's the sole point I think communication is quite bad. Fil-C is memory-safe only if the whole stack is compiled with Fil-C: this does not hold for Rust which does not require to recompile every dependency. Some dependencies cannot even be recompiled. So it turns out this is not "unlike Rust", it's pretty much the same thing: if everything was built in safe rust, then it would be…
Fwiw andrewk seems to be deleting comments that criticize this approach. Not a good look on his part.
Fwiw andrewk seems to be deleting comments that criticize this approach. Not a good look on his part.
1.
> Id like a clarification on how this is safer than Rust?
(Seems reasonable enough)
2. meme image with the words “bait” and “retarded” - should be deleted
3.
> Funny how memory safety suddenly became a priority right after Bun moved to Rust. That feels like a pretty big departure from Zig's original philosophy.
> Someone's still pretty butthurt about Jared and the Bun team.
Just toxic negativity in my opinion. Author has clearly not followed Zig closely as memory safety has always been a priority as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of Zigs other more basic goals. This isn’t serious criticism and it’s completely valid to delete it. Andrew’s interest in Fil-C predates the Bun debacle AFAICT
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, the point makes sense but if that's the sole point I think communication is quite bad. Fil-C is memory-safe only if the whole stack is compiled with Fil-C: this does not hold for Rust which does not require to recompile every dependency. Some dependencies cannot even be recompiled. So it turns out this is not "unlike Rust", it's pretty much the same thing: if everything was built in safe rust, then it would be…
> So it turns out this is not "unlike Rust", it's pretty much the same thing: if everything was built in safe rust, then it would be as safe. The communication of this point is not great at all, so much so I don't think it's purely informative. Safe Rust still basically always links against unsafe C libraries though. Fil-C will only link against libraries compiled with Fil-C which makes for a vastly stronger guarante…
> Parsing and analyzing the assembly. If it contains memory accesses, control flow, or anything we don't recognize, we reject it.
...But I'm no fil-c user nor expert so correct me if I'm wrong!
Zig main dev proposes to introduce a Fil-C like compilation mode to make zig safe: it's only natural to mention how that's different from Rust, right? What about all the other languages, Andrew? I'm tired to see zig head people trying to diss Rust whenever they can. It's annoying for people that enjoy both languages and it's really a hint of how toxic the zig community is.
I spend quite a bit of time in the Zig community, more as an outsider as I don’t contribute very much. I really don’t see how you could find the community toxic unless you take everything they want to do differently from other languages (which may come along with some criticism - explicit or implicit) as some kind of toxic negativity? “I'm tired to see zig head people trying to diss Rust whenever they can.” I feel li…
You are right: I generalized way too much in my comment. I do not mean that all Zig communities are toxic, but at least the ones I read/participate into.
Zig main dev proposes to introduce a Fil-C like compilation mode to make zig safe: it's only natural to mention how that's different from Rust, right? What about all the other languages, Andrew? I'm tired to see zig head people trying to diss Rust whenever they can. It's annoying for people that enjoy both languages and it's really a hint of how toxic the zig community is.
I spend quite a bit of time in the Zig community, more as an outsider as I don’t contribute very much. I really don’t see how you could find the community toxic unless you take everything they want to do differently from other languages (which may come along with some criticism - explicit or implicit) as some kind of toxic negativity? “I'm tired to see zig head people trying to diss Rust whenever they can.” I feel li…
Fwiw andrewk seems to be deleting comments that criticize this approach. Not a good look on his part.