This should be called trust, because it does view the developer as evil.
I meant "it does not view"
Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
101–110 of 269 posts
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't want garbage. But in any case, they don't want straightjackets like the borrow checker. Hence, they use GC'd languages like Go whenever they can.
Straightjackets can be very useful. Haskell (and OCaml etc) give you both straightjackets and a garbage collector. Straightjackets and GC are very compatible. Compared to C, which has neither straightjackets nor a GC (at least not by default).
>Haskell (and OCaml etc) give you both straightjackets..
Haskell's thing with purity and IO does not feel like that. In fact Haskell does it right (IO type is reflected in type). And rust messed it up ("safety" does not show up in types).
You want a global mutable thing in Haskell? just use something like an `IORef` and that is it. It does not involve any complicated type magic. But mutations to it will only happen in IO, and thus will be reflected in types. That is how you do it. That is how it does not feel like a straight jacket.
Haskell as a language is tiny. But Rust is really huge, with endless behavior and expectation to keep in mind, for some some idea of safety that only matter for a small fraction of the programs.
And that I why I find that comment very funny. Always using rust is like always wearing something that constrains you greatly for some idea of "safety" even when it does not really matter. That is insane..
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#103This can't possibly be guaranteed to work just by disabling the checker, can it? If Rust optimizes based on borrow-checker assumptions (which I understand it can and does) then wouldn't violating them be UB, unless you also mess with the compiler to disable those optimizations?
If you write correct Rust code it'll work, the borrowck is just that, a check, if the teacher doesn't check your homework where you wrote that 10 + 5 = 15 it's still correct. If you write incorrect code where you break Rust's borrowing rules it'll have unbounded Undefined Behaviour, unlike the actual Rust where that'd be an error this thing will just give you broken garbage, exactly like a C++ compiler. Evidently mil…
It is possible to like something without hating people who like something else, can't people just live and let live?
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you have code full of warnings and undefined behavior? I think fighting the borrow checker is more like a rite of passage. Rust is not my favorite language but the borrow checker is great.
This is not a hacker’s take
I'm lazy.
If you turn off the borrow checker the code will need a rewrite later, since it's there for a very good reason.
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#105I would actually enjoy that for certain small projects. Rust without the borrow checker is a very elegant language. The borrow checker is great, of course, but it can be a pain to deal with. So, for small projects it would be nice to be able to disable it.
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry, they probably wouldn't want to work with you either. Some programmers think and care a lot about software correctness in a kind of mathematical way. Others just want to ship features and enjoy their lives. Both approaches are fine. They just don't necessarily mix super well. Some people like to tell you that diverse teams work better. Years ago I worked with someone who had a PhD in psychometrics. She sa…
There is a third kind. Those who want to have a lot of fun by using their imagination to come up with interesting ways build something, but in rust, the borrow checker often won't have any of it. In rust you have to learn and internalize lot of the non-intutive borrow checker reasoning to remain sane. If you remember to spend a fraction of that effort to remember the "unsafe" things you could end up doing in C, then…
This persona is the heart and soul of the "weirdly emotional about languages" archetype along with ruby fanatics. Look, y'all have notable and significant value, but only in very specific and unusual circumstances
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#107This can't possibly be guaranteed to work just by disabling the checker, can it? If Rust optimizes based on borrow-checker assumptions (which I understand it can and does) then wouldn't violating them be UB, unless you also mess with the compiler to disable those optimizations?
If you write correct Rust code it'll work, the borrowck is just that, a check, if the teacher doesn't check your homework where you wrote that 10 + 5 = 15 it's still correct. If you write incorrect code where you break Rust's borrowing rules it'll have unbounded Undefined Behaviour, unlike the actual Rust where that'd be an error this thing will just give you broken garbage, exactly like a C++ compiler. Evidently mil…
herb sutter and the c++ community as a whole have put a lot of energy into improving the language and reducing UB; this has been a primary focus of C++26. they are not encouraging people to “churn out more broken garbage”, they are encouraging people to write better code in the language they have spent years developing libraries and expertise in.
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#108Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you write correct Rust code it'll work, the borrowck is just that, a check, if the teacher doesn't check your homework where you wrote that 10 + 5 = 15 it's still correct. If you write incorrect code where you break Rust's borrowing rules it'll have unbounded Undefined Behaviour, unlike the actual Rust where that'd be an error this thing will just give you broken garbage, exactly like a C++ compiler. Evidently mil…
It is possible to like something without hating people who like something else, can't people just live and let live?
Did I write that I hated somebody? I don't think I wrote anything of the sort. I can't say my thoughts about Bjarne for example rise to hatred, nobody should have humoured him in the 1980s, but we're not talking about what happened when rich idiots humoured The Donald or something as serious as that - nobody died, we just got a lot of software written in a crap programming language, I've had worse Thursdays.
And although of course things could have been better they could also have been worse. C++ drinks too much OO kool aid, but hey it introduced lots of people to generic programming which is good.
Re: Rust--: Rust without the borrow checker
#110I'm the author of this repo. I see some really angry comments, some of them even personal. Obviously I didn't think that just by tinkering with a compiler, I'd get personally attacked, but anyway, fair enough.
For those of you confused: yes, this started as a satirical project with the corroded lib. Then I thought "why not just remove the borrow checker?" without any real motivation. Then I just went ahead and did it. To my surprise, it was really simple and easy. I thought it would be heavily tangled into the rustc compiler, but once I figured out where the error emitter is, it was pretty straightforward.
I'm not sure about my long-term goals, but besides the joke, I genuinely think for debugging and prototyping purposes, I'd like the borrow checker to shut up. I'm the kind of guy that prints everything while debugging and prototyping. Maybe you're using a debugger, okay, but I don't. I don't like debuggers. It's just more convenient for me. So what constantly happens is I run into issues like: does this implement Debug? Can I print this after it moved? The borrow checker won't let me access this because of some other borrow. Stuff like that.
Another point is, as you guys are well aware, the borrow checker will reject some valid programs in order to never pass any invalid program. What if I'm sure about what I'm doing and I don't want that check to run?
In the repo there's a doubly linked list example. Without the borrow checker it's fairly simple and easy to implement. With it, you know how complicated and ugly it gets.
Anyway, have a good new year, and don't get angry over compilers, you know.