On Saturday, 27 August 2016 at 20:47:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/27/2016 8:19 AM, Bill Hicks wrote:

I believe Andrei's point was that Rust had focused on one problem to the relative exclusion of others, not that memory safety was unimportant. Rust, to its credit, has changed the perception of the importance of memory safety.

I think it's disingenuous to say that Rust has focused only on one problem. As it is, Rust is a much more capable system programming language than D. Besides, Andrei is not a C++ expert (I know most think this is the case because he's famous, but he isn't), and he's certainly not a PL expert. Not even close. So I don't think he has the right to criticize other programming languages, specially in such a condescending manner.

The problem with misuse of
features like macros is lack of proper training and education, not so much the
features themselves.

This argument is often put forward as the solution, but it just does not scale. This is why so, so much code has security bugs in it. Heck, the whole reason people move from C to Rust is because education and training have proved inadequate to get safe code written in C, despite decades of trying.

Sure, some language features cause more problems than not, regardless of how much training one receives, but I don't think hygienic macros is one of them.

BTW, most of that "code with security bugs in it" has been written by white men. Had it been written by non-whites, and god forbid women, then the programmers would have been blamed for the defects. But because it's been written by white men, they are choosing to blame the tools and the languages, and not the programmers.

Reply via email to