101–110 of 517 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue that unsafety is binary. If a normal eng doing normal things can break it without going out of their way to deliberately fool the compiler or runtime, I’d call it unsafe.
By that definition Rust also counts as unsafe. Even managed languages like C# and Java would be unsafe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is kind of wild that for a 21st century programming language, the amount of stuff in Go that should have been but never was, but hey Docker and Kubernetes.
On the flip side, what would be the point? There are already a million other languages that have everything and the kitchen sink. Not going down the same road is the only reason it didn't end up on the pile of obscure languages nobody uses.
Case in point, Limbo and Oberon-2, the languages that influenced its design, and authors were involved with.
It’s a nice theoretical argument but doesn’t hold up in practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is kind of wild that for a 21st century programming language, the amount of stuff in Go that should have been but never was, but hey Docker and Kubernetes.
On the flip side, what would be the point? There are already a million other languages that have everything and the kitchen sink. Not going down the same road is the only reason it didn't end up on the pile of obscure languages nobody uses.
I personally appreciate Go as a research experiment. Plenty of very interesting ideas, just as, for instance, Haskell. I don't particularly like it as a development language, but I can understand why some people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like the program in the article where code that never dereferences a non-pointer causes the runtime to dereference a non-pointer? That seems like evidence to me.
An exploit against a real Go program that relies on memory corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue that unsafety is binary. If a normal eng doing normal things can break it without going out of their way to deliberately fool the compiler or runtime, I’d call it unsafe.
By that definition Rust also counts as unsafe. Even managed languages like C# and Java would be unsafe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most common definition of memory safe is literally "cannot segfault" (unless invoking some explicitly unsafe operation - which is not the case here unless you think the "go" keyword should be unsafe).
I don't know the NSA with their white house paper about memory safe language mentioned Go, maybe you should tell that there are wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue that unsafety is binary. If a normal eng doing normal things can break it without going out of their way to deliberately fool the compiler or runtime, I’d call it unsafe.
By that definition Rust also counts as unsafe. Even managed languages like C# and Java would be unsafe.
Memory safety is just the source of bugs that we've figured out how to eliminate. It's a significant source of really bad (hard to debug due to action at a distance, high impact, etc) bugs so that's worth a lot, but it's not perfect. And even then we have a more frequently used escape hatch to the memory-unsafe world than would be ideal from a safety perspective for practical reasons.
A more complete version of safety would be achieved with a language that proves code correct to arbitrary specifications. We aren't there yet for there being such a language that is practical for every day use. Personally I'm increasingly optimistic we'll get there sooner rather than later (say, within 20 years). Even then there will probably be specification level bugs that prevent a claim of complete safety...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What precisely are you accusing your interlocutor of not understanding?
Why people with vastly more skill and experience programming and writing programming languages made the decisions they did.
JS went without static types, Go went without generics, PHP was just a tool for reducing html boilerplate. New languages love to stick null right in there. Rust isn't what Graydon Hoare wanted it to be. Chris Lattner called Swift a failure.
It's all up for criticism.