lad

Reminds me of how I found some safety measures to be in China some years back, basically those were signs saying “plz don’t fall to your death, if you do it’s your fault”

Well, there is cve-rs, just sayin’

If you want everyone to stop trying to shove Rust everywhere, just use smart pointers more. I may somehow get over Rust not replacing every other language if those languages will be safe

I think, the idea was along the lines of “because C++ was not memory-safe, and it has to stay compatible with how it was, there are still a lot of ways to not write memory-safely”

This makes sense, there are memory-safely features available but there are a lot of programmers that will never willingly use that features, because the olden ways are surely better

Other than that, I agree, when you’re paid to fix an unfixable problem you will probably claim something like that and advocate for your solution being the only one that solves this

Are we still talking about COBOL?

To be fair, I disagree with all the points author makes, except for performance which is important but may be less important than code clarity in different cases. I am surprised that exceptions perform that well, and I am surprised the author said that compared C++ exceptions to Rust results, but actually did the right thing and compared C++ exceptions with C++ expected first. I thought it was going to be one of those “let’s compare assembly to lisp”

Yeah, I shaped my words poorly. What I meant is that errors are sort of equivalent to exceptions, but errors are first class citizens of type system, and this is an improvement over exceptions being kind of independent of type

Have you ever worked at large old corporation? Wasting money is a bit of an underestimation on that scale.

Also, not all banks use COBOL, but the ones that don’t are usually much younger.

Besides, Ada would’ve been a better example, as it is used by telecoms and seems to be held in high regard, unlike COBOL. The only issue with Ada I heard of is that it’s on par with C++ in complexity which is far from being simple.

I’m just going to ask, without making assumptions. Have you managed to cut some time to read the article and find an answer?

you never know what code your function or library calls that can produce an exception

As far as I remember, there were several attempts at introducing exceptions into type system, and all have failed to a various degree. C++ abandoned the idea completely, Java has a half-assed exception signature where you can always throw an unexpected exception if it’s runtime exception, mist likely there were other cases, too.

So yeah, exception as part of explicit function signature is a vast improvement, I completely agree

I feel like this will have zero protection against

if (result.isSuccess()) {
    handle_error(result.error);
} else {
    do_something(result.value);
}

Besides, this is exactly what the comment said about having to constantly check for return values at call site. I think this may be mitigated by some clever macro-magic, but that will become a mess fast.

I don’t know the answer to your question, but I think that what is needed is just a bit of syntactic sugar, e.g. Rust has ? for returning compatible errors without looking into them. That seems to be powered by Try trait, that may be a monad, but I am not fluent enough to check if it formally is.

It’s used because the ones who use it have enough money to pay for any problems that may arise from it’s use, and known problems are deemed better than unknown ones.

It is a viable model when you have enough money and resources, but a conservative one

it’s one of the most popular languages used for C/C++ build scripting

Unfortunately 😅

That way we’ll just find maintainers went near extinct over time, just like COBOL developers that are as rare as they are expensive. Only Linux kernel isn’t a bank, and maybe will not have as much money to pay to rare developers capable of maintaining C codebase

Well, as they say, “common sense is not very common”, but thinking a bit before rushing in may always do good.

It’s the number of the signal sent, 9 is for SIGKILL. You can send various signals with kill, and depending on how application was made it may react on all signals with dying, or meaningfully process most of them. Afaik, SIGKILL can’t be processed by the app, and it always means just that: “die already”.

Checked in Wikipedia, that’s about right but there are more details I left out, mostly because didn’t know about them, too: POSIX signals

Augenmass? Keeping distance or something?

No, it’s when someone wanted to change docs to say “they” when referring to the user. I don’t think it was really necessary, but refusal to do that looks like a statement I don’t like.

The hard part is “that add value”. Not only it’s hard to measure, but highly depends on scope of what is done