6 ms·
He's been especially arrogant and dismissive on X. I'm very glad Fil-C exists, but his behavior makes me doubt the whole project.
by mshroyer 2mo ago
He's been especially arrogant and dismissive on X. I'm very glad Fil-C exists, but his behavior makes me doubt the whole project.
- metaltyphoon 2mo agoMark? AwareDigital 2013?
- mshroyer 2mo agoHey drop me an email
- mshroyer 2mo agoTo be concrete and hopefully more constructive with my criticism, he's prone to saying things like "Fil-C is safer than Rust": https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2053351119095791995 https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2053351119095791995 And "Rust let’s you corrupt memory / Fil-C doesn’t.": https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2079253367587737841 https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2079253367587737841 These are false claims. The following compiles and runs fine with Fil-C, happily corrupting memory in a way that a safer language like Rust would not allow: #include <stdint.h> #include <stdio.h> struct Account { unsigned char name[8]; uint32_t privileged; }; void write_name(struct Account *account, size_t index, char value) { account->name[index] = value; } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { struct Account acct = { .name = "foobar", .privileged = 42, }; write_name(&acct, 8, 1); printf("privileged = %d\n", acct.privileged); return 0; } His claims about Fil-C being safer than Rust seem to hinge on Fil-C's ability to make safe-er an entire application stack, compared to a hypothetical Rust application that links to C dependencies which (currently) can't be compiled with Fil-C. This is true as far as it goes, but it's a far cry from justifying a blanket statement like "Fil-C is safer than Rust".