121–130 of 269 posts
My controversial opinion: If Rust were to "borrow" something from the C/C++ spirit, then disabling the borrow checker should be available as a compiler option. As in, you're an adult: if you want it, you can have it, instead of "we know better".
I'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…
I think there is probably a way to do what you're doing with unsafe. You could write a library that copies handles and can dump potentially freed memory afterwards.
This 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…
My controversial opinion: If Rust were to "borrow" something from the C/C++ spirit, then disabling the borrow checker should be available as a compiler option. As in, you're an adult: if you want it, you can have it, instead of "we know better".
It doesn't make much sense to globally relax restrictions of Rust's references to be like C/C++ pointers, because the reference types imply a set of guarantees: must be non-null (affects struct layout), always initialized, and have strict shared/immutable vs exclusive access distinction. If you relax these guarantees, you'll break existing code that relies on having them, and make the `--yolo` flag code incompatible with the rest. OTOH if you don't remove them, then you still have almost all of borrow checker's restrictions with none of the help of upholding them. It'd be like a flag that disables the sign bit of signed integers. It just makes an existing type mean something else.
Earlier 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…
I have been using kde for years now without a single problem. Calling cpp garbage sounds wrong.
Earlier 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…
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.
What are protental issues with compiler, by just disabling borrow checker? If I recall correctly some compiler optimisations for rust can not be done in C/C++ because of restrictions implied by borrow checker.
Without the borrow checker, how should memory be managed? Just never deallocate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 alth…
My controversial opinion: If Rust were to "borrow" something from the C/C++ spirit, then disabling the borrow checker should be available as a compiler option. As in, you're an adult: if you want it, you can have it, instead of "we know better".
If we can't have this, C itself offers zero benefit over assembly.
I'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…
I think there is probably a way to do what you're doing with unsafe. You could write a library that copies handles and can dump potentially freed memory afterwards.
I gotta applaud that level of my-way-or-the-highway