5 ms·
There's a distinction between claiming something is objectively better, which is what Fil-C claims with respect to its "idea" about memory safety compared to Ru
by Maxatar 2mo ago
There's a distinction between claiming something is objectively better, which is what Fil-C claims with respect to its "idea" about memory safety compared to Rust... and claiming a personal preference for one approach versus another approach, which is what OP is saying about their own personal preference about how Zig reduces errors compared to how Rust reduces errors.
It is absolutely possible that one language might actually have an objectively better approach to memory safety than another, and in such cases it is usually possible to argue for this using sound technical or empirical arguments. But the way the author of Fil-C presents their arguments it often comes across in a kind of antagonistic manner, like he has a chip on his shoulder.
- pron 2mo ago> But the way the author of Fil-C presents their arguments it often comes across in a kind of antagonistic manner, like he has a chip on his shoulder. You may well be right. I've yet to learn about it, but I'm planning to.
- pizlonator 2mo agoI never claimed that Fil-C is objectively better than Rust. As a long time PL researcher, I can, should, and will point out interesting corner cases of languages. Including in Fil-C or Rust
- iczero 2mo agoHere is someone providing real criticism of Rust: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49101733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49101733 Here is you claiming "Facts" on a troll post claiming to "criticize" Rust: https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2081765923757903940 https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2081765923757903940