Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 342 posts

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#331

Post by ngrilly »

pdimitar wrote: post #160
ngrilly wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say the biggest problem of interpreted, JIT compiled, and GCed languages is not the speed; it’s the RAM use. I agree that quite often we don’t need the speed of close-to-the-metal. But there is something wrong with most programs eating tens or hundreds of megabytes, without doing much.

And I agree on that. My favorite Elixir's runtime (Erlang's BEAM VM) still has some subtle problems with holding on to big(ger) binaries (strings) that requires very specific code be written at the green thread boundaries and it can get pretty maddening if you don't get it right -- which is not easy. Golang I hear is doing much better btw. But you still have to be wary of its footguns i.e. leaking goroutines.

Go is doing much better on memory use because 1) it is AOT compiled, 2) it tries to allocate as much as possible on the stack (escape analysis), 3) it supports value types (the items of an array and the fields of a struct are contiguous in memory). But it's still a GCed language, which generally means a slightly higher memory use, controlled by $GOGC, to not spend too much time CPU time on garbage collection. Overall, Go is an excellent tradeoff for most applications.

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#332

Post by rfoo »

p_l wrote: post #232
rfoo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of the alternative do not generate same code though. At least they don't without LTO.

The point of "implementation defined" is that the actual code generated is up to implementation, or in fact whether it even accepts such code.

Sure, I don't disagree.

What I mean is, most compilers won't generate a function call or an additional indirect memory access for *(111) = 222;, unlike your spec-compliant alternatives.

This is, IMO, the problem. Sometimes we just want a more ergonomic way than inline assembly in a hot loop (and also we'd like to to pretend its portable). The spec does not have an answer to this.

So, unless all C compilers in the world actively sabotage this usage (like how Go did to map traversal orders), your spec saying this is "implementation defined" have no impact at all. All C compilers are bound to implement the same intuitive but completely-not-enforced-by-spec behavior. Because if they don't, people just use something else.

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#333

Post by pico303 »

superb_dev wrote: post #287
pico303 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with Rust is that it’s a hammer, and every nail is memory safety. If I’m writing a TLS library or kernel module, yes, memory safety is paramount. But if I’m writing pretty much anything else, Rust isn’t worth the slog.

How is that a problem with rust? Like any language it's a tool with strengths and weaknesses. Don't use it when it doesn't make sense

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was thinking in the context of every online discussion I’ve run across around “Rust vs. any other language,” where the diehard Rustaceans insist that we should just rewrite everything in Rust.

Totally agree with you: use the best tool for the job.

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#334

Post by subjectsigma »

some_furry wrote: post #329
subjectsigma wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t just say “No, you’re wrong.” And expect me to change my mind?? Both being a goth and being a furry are about way more than clothing and appearance. Goths don’t really have anything to do with furries. I don’t know why you’re bringing them up. Every furry I have met in real life thought it was a sex thing. Every normal person from the outside looking in thinks it’s a sex thing. Just look at the history of fu…

> You can’t just say “No, you’re wrong.” And expect me to change my mind?? Okay, let me try this then: https://soatok.blog/2021/04/02/the-furry-sexuality-blog-post... Key argument: What isn't a sex thing?

Holy shit that has to be the least convincing argument I have ever read. Did you even read it?

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#335

Post by CrimsonCape »

devjab wrote: post #192
nottorp wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, maybe Rust would get more people interested if it didn't sound like a religion...

It’s a cult, but you don’t have to join the cult. I use Rust both privately and more and more frequently professionally and I don’t really notice the cult community outside of smiling at it once in a while when it blows up on HN. We’re mostly adopting rust to replace our C, to protect us from ourselves. It’s just so much easier to hand off these sort of projects to developers who mainly work with things like Java or…

I saw your comment on an older C# thread in which you said (paraphrased) that C# is not bad, has nothing really stellar, and is just kind of bland.

If you could theoretically swap out the entire back-end of a programming language, and hypothetically you did that to C# by allowing developers to write C# styling and syntax that could be compiled to Rust, it would probably not be a big loss. The type primitives would be an apples-apples comparison at best, or "Rust is just better" if you really scrutinized the types closely. Where does that leave the rest of the language? A better regex implementation? Rust would probably win. A better GUI experience? Rust is speedily approaching usable APIs there at the same time Microsoft is trying to sunset the best they had.

I wonder if F# could be rebased on top of Rust...

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#336

Post by karma_pharmer »

tialaramex wrote: post #325
nullc wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how modifying the compiler is relevant to the point. I think it's the general trend that early in languages lives its much easier to contribute to the tools, after decades of amassing improvements (such as yours!) they tend to become less accessible. But regardless, the "rewrite in rust" advocacy has created a significant opportunity for projects created by single people, without outside review and often…

The compiler is illustrative. A large piece of Rust software, nevertheless easier to read and contribute to when compared to similar software in the same category.

Um, no.

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#337

Post by throwanem »

pdimitar wrote: post #214
flohofwoe wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The C sphere is actually refreshingly free of zealotry (mainly I guess because there isn't such a thing as a "C community" and even despite C being the main attack target of language zealots - funny enough nobody complains about those pesky assembly coders and their hippie attitude towards memory safety lol). The "religious zeal" was also an important reason why I switched back to C from C++ and why I don't have much…

> This was an important reason why I switched back to C from C++ and why I don't have much interest in Rust. I can't quite stand the the "holier than thou" attitude in.parts of those communities. This is 100% baffling to me. Let me explain. 1. Every single area has zealots. Yours included. And we're not talking only work. Every hobby area as well. 2. What the attitude of the most toxic 0.1% of the users of a thing is…

If I responded in this fashion to someone who had already expressed concerns about a holier-than-thou attitude in parts of the community, I hope it would give me food for thought.

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#338

Post by pdimitar »

throwanem wrote: post #337
pdimitar wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was an important reason why I switched back to C from C++ and why I don't have much interest in Rust. I can't quite stand the the "holier than thou" attitude in.parts of those communities. This is 100% baffling to me. Let me explain. 1. Every single area has zealots. Yours included. And we're not talking only work. Every hobby area as well. 2. What the attitude of the most toxic 0.1% of the users of a thing is…

If I responded in this fashion to someone who had already expressed concerns about a holier-than-thou attitude in parts of the community, I hope it would give me food for thought.

Just passing the ball? Yeah, I'd consider that + using a throwaway to be a set of circumstances that don't merit a response at all. ;)

I've already made my points several times. If you don't engage on the concrete arguments and are trying to be vaguely argumentative without substance then you're kind of polluting the replies.

Here's what should be a food for thought for you.

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#339

Post by throwanem »

pdimitar wrote: post #338
throwanem wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I responded in this fashion to someone who had already expressed concerns about a holier-than-thou attitude in parts of the community, I hope it would give me food for thought.

Just passing the ball? Yeah, I'd consider that + using a throwaway to be a set of circumstances that don't merit a response at all. ;) I've already made my points several times. If you don't engage on the concrete arguments and are trying to be vaguely argumentative without substance then you're kind of polluting the replies. Here's what should be a food for thought for you.

Okay, and the direct version is that you responded to a general and rather vague comment about a holier-than-thou community by demonstrating in highly fluent detail exactly what that looks like in practice. To attempt a persuasive argument is by definition to engage in rhetoric. In the way you did so, specifically to persuade that the concern is unfounded, you behaved precisely as you sought to argue no one does. In short, you proved beyond doubt that your opponent's claim is valid. In rhetoric, there is no more abject form of failure.

Also, you behaved quite rudely as well as counterproductively - to the point that, if I felt any investment in the Rust community, I would now be asking you please to stop trying to represent it, at least until you can do so competently enough not to embarrass those you purport to defend.

If I found I'd erred as you have, it would bother me a lot. How you handle it is, happily for me, not my problem. But now at least you can't say you've never been told.

Re: "No way to prevent this" say users of only language where this regularly happens

#340

Post by pdimitar »

throwanem wrote: post #339
pdimitar wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just passing the ball? Yeah, I'd consider that + using a throwaway to be a set of circumstances that don't merit a response at all. ;) I've already made my points several times. If you don't engage on the concrete arguments and are trying to be vaguely argumentative without substance then you're kind of polluting the replies. Here's what should be a food for thought for you.

Okay, and the direct version is that you responded to a general and rather vague comment about a holier-than-thou community by demonstrating in highly fluent detail exactly what that looks like in practice. To attempt a persuasive argument is by definition to engage in rhetoric. In the way you did so, specifically to persuade that the concern is unfounded, you behaved precisely as you sought to argue no one does. In…

It's amazing how much writing you do just to demonstrate how thoroughly you misread my comments and only found what you wanted to find.

You're the perfect example of biased and tunnel-visioned. Textbook example even.

Think what you will. Unfortunately for you, future readers will make up their own mind and not all will land at your defective conclusion.

Post reply on HN