Game Jam 2 Results • Hacker News Board

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#191

Post by littlestymaar » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #190

littlestymaar wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to read you talking about “beliefs” and “cult” while at the same time being in such a denial: > You've seen absolutely no such thing. Just go ahead, grab a few popular projects in Zig (for instance Bun or the zig compiler) and their issue tracker and see how fine the situation is. And as an epistemological conclusion to this discussion, I should note that while you use “beliefs” pejoratively, but “knowledg…

> Just go ahead, grab a few popular projects in Zig (for instance Bun or the zig compiler) and their issue tracker and see how fine the situation is. I don't understand. Zig's approach to correctness means giving up on some sound memory safety guarantees in exchange for benefits elsewhere, i.e. it prefers some memory bugs in exchange for fewer others. What conclusion is it, again, that you're trying to draw from the…

> Why? Because the claim is that they both dominate C++, i.e. they catch all the bugs that you'd catch in C++ plus more. They both make more sound guarantees, and their readability is no worse.

You're talking about rigor but you keep making these laughably strong claims. This one is an extraordinary one, and it's most likely also false just because I'm pretty convinced that copy/move constructors can make some (rare) patterns much simpler and as such avoid bugs in practice. It's not clear if copy/move constructors are a net win, and the overall effect is almost certainly minimal anyway, but that's enough to refute the domination claim.

> I don't understand.

That's the key. And you don't want to understand, I'm afraid.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#192

Post by pron » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 10:43 PM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #191

pron wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just go ahead, grab a few popular projects in Zig (for instance Bun or the zig compiler) and their issue tracker and see how fine the situation is. I don't understand. Zig's approach to correctness means giving up on some sound memory safety guarantees in exchange for benefits elsewhere, i.e. it prefers some memory bugs in exchange for fewer others. What conclusion is it, again, that you're trying to draw from the…

> Why? Because the claim is that they both dominate C++, i.e. they catch all the bugs that you'd catch in C++ plus more. They both make more sound guarantees, and their readability is no worse. You're talking about rigor but you keep making these laughably strong claims. This one is an extraordinary one, and it's most likely also false just because I'm pretty convinced that copy/move constructors can make some (rare)…

I have no idea what you're talking about. My one and only "claim" -- a simple statement of fact, really -- is that we lack any empirical evidence that Rust yields more correct programs than Zig, and that because the two languages consciously make different tradeoffs, they are not directly comparable, and so such empirical evidence is needed. That's it.

Everything else is just a response to you asking for more context and examples, as well as explanations for why your arguments are so unconvincing, which you then misunderstand as further claims that they are not (e.g. I do not claim that either Zig or Rust yields more correct programs than C/C++). In fact, I do not claim that any language yields more correct programs than any others (not that I don't think that could be true, I'm just hesitant to make such claims). All I did was explain why such an argument would be more convincing than the argument you're making for Rust vs. Zig.

Seems like we're stuck in a circle where you can't understand what I'm saying and I can't understand what you're saying.

In any event, we've gone full meta. Like I said, if you think I am the problem, that can be easily tested. Put your argument in a paper so that it can be properly critiqued. This way you'd at least know if it's me who doesn't want to understand or that your arguments are just not very convincing. If most software correctness people find it convincing -- yay for you; if not, you'll learn how to make your argument more convincing, so also yay for you.

Re: Game Jam 2 Results

#193

Post by anothernewdude » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

quic5 wrote: post #81

anothernewdude wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never got my rust wasm build to work without needing JS.

Then you will enjoy WASM-4 since it handles the glue code for you. There's no JS in you game but the web emulator is written in JS

I may just give it another shot. That sounds good.