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
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