It is still possible to write bugs in both Haskell and Rust.
Yes, that's my point. I'm replying to claims that "if it compiles it probably works". My limited experience with both is "nah".
Readit Newsatilaneves commented on If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C? stephenramsay.net/posts/v... · Posted by u/sramsay
atilaneves commented on If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C? stephenramsay.net/posts/v... · Posted by u/sramsay
How did your tests pass if you didn't handle state?
Because it is also possible to write tests that don't adequately capture real-life requirements.
It was an MQTT server, and the tests basically went "if we have these subscriptions, then...", but no subscriptions ever got actually stored by the server.
atilaneves commented on If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C? stephenramsay.net/posts/v... · Posted by u/sramsay
> Rust doesn't prevent programs from having logic errors.
Nobody ever claimed that. The claims are:
1. Rust drastically reduces the chance of memory errors. (Or eliminates them if you avoid unsafe code.)
2. Rust reduces the chance of other logic errors.
Rust doesn't have to eliminate logic errors to be a better choice than C or assembly. Significantly reducing their likelihood is enough.
Every language with a GC drastically reduces the chance of memory errors.
atilaneves commented on If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C? stephenramsay.net/posts/v... · Posted by u/sramsay
Rust does not have manual memory management, and its type system also has the property that if your program compiles it probably works, IME.
I hear this about both Haskell and Rust, and yet, when I tried both in the former I wrote a useless program because I didn't handle state (and yet passed all tests!) while in the latter I immediately wrote a deadlock.
So...yeah.
atilaneves commented on If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C? stephenramsay.net/posts/v... · Posted by u/sramsay
I made the same comment last week upon learning of a redis clone entirely vibe coded in IIRC ~70k lines of Rust. Why Rust? Why does a computer need a memory safe language?
atilaneves commented on Pnut: A C to POSIX shell compiler you can trust pnut.sh... · Posted by u/feeley
I'm still figuring out why anyone would want to write a shell script in C. That sounds like torture to me.
atilaneves commented on Representing State as Interfaces in Go emoses.org/posts/resolver... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
This seems similar to replicating substructural type systems like linear or affine types via interfaces.
I can't remember who gave this talk, but a prime example is a `File` type. A `File` type shouldn't have a Read() method until the file itself has opened. And calling `Close()` on the File should prevent further reads. Substructural typing - and this pattern - allows you to refine types based off of the type's instance state.
There's a ton possible here but I haven't really kept up to date with type systems in the last 5 years. Stuff like this has probably advanced a ton!
Wouldn't the instance state here be "was constructed"? That is: you should always be able to call `Read` because the constructor opened the file, and you shouldn't have to call `Close` anyway because the destructor did.
atilaneves commented on OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions dpldocs.info/this-week-in... · Posted by u/mepian
It's worth pointing out that Walter is one of two co-maintainers of the language. The other has not said anything at all. On the other hand, I'm not sure what there is to say if they're not going to make any changes in the process.
I'm far more concerned about community development of libraries, IDE support, and the beginner experience (especially on Windows) than I am about changes to the language, which is already pretty good. As a Linux user working on top of C libraries, the experience is incredible. That's not the case for everyone.
I just posted on the forum about it, I didn't do it before because of surgery (I'm still nowhere near 100%).
What changes would you like to see happen?
atilaneves commented on OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions dpldocs.info/this-week-in... · Posted by u/mepian
FWIW, I just posted this on the D forum: https://forum.dlang.org/post/vwnefgsszqxobssylhmc@forum.dlan...
> Otherwise "(*x).y" would have been needed, instead of "x->y". With a postfix "*", that would have been "x*.y", and "->", would not have been needed.
I mean technically the compiler could just have been less stupid and made `.` auto-deref, it’s not like C has operator overloading so the LHS is either a struct or a pointer, not both.
Proof of the fact that this works is that D does exactly this.