Re: The Case for Rust (in any system)

On 09-09-24 21:31, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:

> Despite that it is unfortunate but true that prototypes in C and
> also C++ not seldom do not tell the truth because bit enumerations
> are missing, and so you have integers of various widths as "bit
> carriers" through which completely unchecked bits are then passed.

Non sequitur. This is due to the C and C++ type system, nothing to do 
with prototypes.

> Or at least in C, which does not support "easy super-class cast"s,

C++ has a stricter type system than C. That makes doing wrong things a 
bit more difficult

>   |I'm not sure that I follow your argument. Are you saying that you can
>   |build memory safety into C code and that if someone doesn't so they are
>   |a bad programmer? What's the point - why not just use a memory safe
>   |language?
> 
> Because Floyd means pink not paul, hah!

Is this the infants school playground?

You just lost your last shred of credibility.

> But answering your question i would say it does not make much of
> a difference to me -- *if* i can go the way i want -- regarding
> safety, but a lot regarding runtime and infrastructural overhead.
> For example most of the development time i compile with tcc that
> is 334640 bytes and links to almost nada.
> 
>    #?0|kent:built$ ll tcc#20240731-1.pkg.tar.zst
>    -rw-rw---- 1 ports ports 273285 Aug  3 22:11 tcc#20240731-1.pkg.tar.zst
> 
>    #?0|kent:built$ ll gcc#14.2.0-1.pkg.tar.zst
>    -rw-rw---- 1 ports ports 67854914 Aug  1 21:59 gcc#14.2.0-1.pkg.tar.zst
> 
>    #?0|kent:built$ ll clang#18.1.8-1.pkg.tar.zst
>    -rw-rw---- 1 ports ports 74166358 Jun 22 21:26 clang#18.1.8-1.pkg.tar.zst
>    #?0|kent:built$ ll llvm#18.1.8-1.pkg.tar.zst
>    -rw-rw---- 1 ports ports 136797237 Jun 22 23:57 llvm#18.1.8-1.pkg.tar.zst
>    #?0|kent:built$ ll compiler-rt#18.1.8-1.pkg.tar.zst
>    -rw-rw---- 1 ports ports 3378581 Jun 23 00:02 compiler-rt#18.1.8-1.pkg.tar.zst
> 
> Unfortunately pcc is dead, it detected things that clang and gcc
> did not (via warning options etc).  tcc is very bad in such.


IMO tcc is simply godawful. I would not touch it with a bargepole.

I did once look at a tcc bug. I gave up as I felt that it wasn't worth 
trying to fix and obsolete port.

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=274211

A C compiler that can't compile hello world.

[More ranting and crappy C macros deleted. Plonk.]

A+
Paul