[Info-vax] Rust as a HS language, was: Re: Quiet?

[chris]

On 04/09/22 13:29, Don Baccus wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 1:52:43 AM UTC-7, chris wrote:
>> On 04/09/22 05:33, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2022 7:51 PM, chris wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/22 13:30, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> In article<t2nn0k$rns$1... at gioia.aioe.org>,
>>>>> chris<chris-... at tridac.net>  wrote:
>>>>>> Far too much of an academic attitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like one of those "ad hominem on the sly" things you
>>>>> were talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Not an insult. We need the academics to do the research, but it's
>>>> the engineers who have to translate the theory into usable product,
>>>> where possible.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's an imperfect world and
>>>>>> in real life, systems get designed and built within the constraints
>>>>>> of available tech of the day. Usually too much risk in working at
>>>>>> the bleeding edge of tech, especially with unproven tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> Static typing is not an "unproven tool".
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dan C.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't remember discussing static typing at all...
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>> That was maybe me. This conversation has been all over the place. I'm
>>> thinking most that can be said has been said, and now we're just beating
>>> it to death. Perhaps move on?
>>>
>> In comp.os.vms, things can take a life of their own, so perhaps you are
>> right. I think we all would like to see higher standards in software
>> engineering. Some seem to want to constrain freedom to get there. Others
>> think it's more about personal responsibility and doing it right for
>> it's own sake. Same in mainstream politics I guess...
>>
>> Chris.
>
> "Some seem to want to constrain freedom to get there."
>
> This and your other politically-driven comments are the stupidest
things I've ever seen a self-described software engineer make.
>
> You know what language designers who work towards making safer languages want?
>
> To lower engineering costs.

and I suppose we should all be grateful ?.

And, yes, this means often limiting degrees

of freedom but not in the political sense.  The "freedom" to write:

Well ymmv, but everything in life where humanity interacts
is political. We have always had evangelists,  this and that,
those who think they know what's best for us all and want to
bestow their version of perfection onto humanity, but they are
so often intolerant under the skin and push come to
shove, are quite happy to impose it onto others by any means
possible. That's not democracy as I see it.

Taking a more generous view, perhaps some are idealists
with good ideas, but natural selection rules, in that if
an idea is that good, it sells itself and will be taken
up, given enough time...

>
> int foo[10];
> int *bar=foo;
> ...
> bar[11];
>
> is simply the "freedom" to break your program.
>

If you are stupid enough to write that sort of code and ignore
good practice, you deserve what you get :-)...

Chris