I had no idea about the assertion! Thanks.
Yes, this is plain wrong or often unimportant on modern architecture, you’re right. I, certainly mistakenly, thought this was one of the reasons for the idiomatic version involving function composition, which is the thing I, subjectively, don’t enjoy as much.
I stand corrected.
This but going the “other direction” for me.
Learning maths has mostly consisted of a repetition of me thinking for a brief moment “yay! I know how to differentiate functions”, only to discover later a more general/different setting in which it was clear that no, I did not, in fact, know how to differentiate functions.
Thanks for the detailed answer. Preaching to the choir.
The existence of the concept of ownership in languages like C++ is why I threw “moderately” in there. I agree depending on what you take that to mean, it may or may not do some heavy lifting.
For the rest, I’d divide it into hard facts (compiler messages are absolutely undeniable, in any circumstance) and things that can definitely be true depending on your personal use cases. I’m with you on this: for the vast vast majority of tasks commonly understood as software engineering, memory safety is a concern, and a lot, if not all, of your points, are valid.
I must humbly insist that it does not fit my needs, in the sense that memory safety is of no concern to me, and that the restrictions that a compiler-enforced approach imposes make me less productive, and, subjectively, also less enjoyable because causing more friction.
That being said, you may also not consider what I’m currently doing to be software engineering, and that’s totally fine. Then we’d agree entirely.
EDIT: also, there are very few languages less productive and beginner-friendly than C++ in my opinion. The proverbial bar is in hell. But you are talking to an unreasonable C++ hater.
What? You need to make a function to make a loop? That can’t be right???
Ah no, there is a misunderstanding. You can write C-loops, of course, they just could involve more work under the hood because in order to enforce memory safety, there needs to be some form of bounds checking that does not happen in C. Caveat: I don’t know whether that’s always true, and what the subtleties are. Maybe I’m wrong about that even, but what is true is that what I am about to say, you will encounter in Rust codebases.
By function composition I meant in the mathematical sense. So, this example explains the gist of it. You may need to throw in a lambda function in there to actually do the job, yeah. I don’t know what the compiler actually reduces that to though.
It’s just the more functional approach that you can also see with Haskell for example. I find it harder to parse, but that may be lack of training rather than intrinsic difficult.
EDIT: pasted the wrong link to something totally irrelevant, fixed now
Ah, a fellow C coder. Never did do assembly with chips older than x86_64 basically. The only old school stuff I touched was writing an interpreter for the CHIP-8. I tried writing some CHIP-8 too, but coming from more recent paradigms, it seemed quite unwieldy to me.
I like python for quick and dirty stuff, I don’t like python for being interpreted and it being not obvious what happens under the hood, memory wise, at a glance.
Seeing as you do C I’ll say this. The one thing I really did not enjoy, subjectively, with Rust, is that writing “C-style loops” comes with a performance penalty because there are bound checks happening, so the idiomatic version of a loop in Rust usually involves iterators and function composition.
I am stupid. C-loops are easy for me to understand. More sophisticated stuff is hard for my little brain. I’d rather be trusted with my memory access, and be reminded of my stupidity when comes the inevitable segfault. Keeps you humble.
Enjoy! I don’t know what you used to seriously program on but I am willing to bet that the ownership paradigm that it enforces is going to feel at least moderately new to you, unless you forced yourself to code that way anyways.
Plus, as long as you’re doing silly little home projects, the compiler errors are the absolute best I’ve ever seen. Literally just learn basic syntax, try it out, and when it does not compile, the compiler not only tells you why but also what it thinks you’re trying to do and how to fix.
Absolute gem of a learning tool.
No, Rust is to make you feel like you haven’t programmed seriously in 20 years when you first pick it up, even though you are actively doing it.
Before the angry rust “mob” comes to get me: this is a joke. I tried Rust out of genuine curiosity, cobbled together a silly little thing, and quite liked it. The borrow checker made me feel like a total beginner again, in some aspects, and it was great to get that feeling again.
Ultimately it does not fit my needs, but there are a few features I am pretty envious of. I can totally see why it’s getting such a following, and I hope it keeps growing.
A Friend of mine with similar political inclination keeps telling me I should read it, for the same “know thy enemy” kind of argument.
I just can’t bring myself to it, we all get bombarded enough with that shitty ideology, and have to push it back irl constantly, so I’d love to escape it, a bit, in my downtime.
Well yes it is to me too seeing as that abuse was not made, to my knowledge at least, in my native language.
But then I thought, “well if there is a crescendo, unless it goes on forever, there will be a climax”. So I kinda get where the abuse (or misunderstanding, or literary license, or whatever the intent is) comes from. I don’t, personally, agree with it, so won’t use it that way. But whatever I personally think is irrelevant, at least now I am aware someone might mean that. So I guess now, in English at least, it’s been long enough and widespread enough it’s no longer an abuse (colloquially speaking)
Hag.
Just in case: this is a reference to Hot Fuzz, I’m not actually calling you a hag.
It might be?..
Oops, I meant to say: “hayaaa”
Thanks a lot for the answer! Quite interesting that the Proto-Indo-European word could have been something close to wasp, only for English to go through the waps->wasp that you explained in your previous post.
Well, one fewer false “fact” to believe in, many more to go!
Totally fair.
We all seem to agree that we kind of don’t really remember it though. It’s at least reassuring that that’s a shared experience.
Yeah I mean, it’s utterly forgettable. I’ve just not had that many book recommendations from friends, but I did really enjoy most of them, so I had to really scratch my head a bit. Best I could find to fit the bill was that.
I’ve read my fair share of shit books all on my own though, like a big boi.
Well I’ll save myself the trouble of being put on some sort of list for reading it then, thanks.
I honestly couldn’t remember any specifics beyond the fact I eyerolled many more times than one should when reading a book.
Something about a boy in a desert, meeting a wise old man who helps him find himself by telling him a few mystical stories…
Don’t think you have. If memory serves me right, it’s about being mindful and focusing on what matters, but wraps it in a ridiculously artificial “spiritual” setting.
This book is to literature what Instagram inspiration quotes are to poetry.
Was that helpful or necessary in the end? Or was is such trite that you could have done without?
The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. It was a while back, so I can’t remember exactly, but I do remember my friend not doing it any favours by really praising that book. Perhaps I was expecting too much, but by contrast, I found it to be a rather naïve, consensual, and superficial self-help book trying to masquerade as something more profound with a thin veneer of new-age spirituality.
Hope I don’t offend someone who loves it. I don’t feel strongly about it now, it was a while back, so maybe I missed something then. If someone disagrees with me I won’t die on that hill.
That’s the sort of indictment of C++ I like to hear. It’s not just me then. I sometimes feel like I’m taking crazy pills with some colleagues who are super enthusiastic about it still.
But again, I’m stupid, I know I’m stupid, and C++ has way too many features and convoluted behaviours which are hard for me to remember and reason about. It often feels like it makes me think more about the language problems than the actual problem I’m supposed to work on. It may say more about me than the language, but I do feel validated with comments like this.