Are we still talking about COBOL?
Rust dev, I enjoy reading and playing games, I also usually like to spend time with friends.
You can reach me on mastodon @sukhmel@mastodon.online or telegram @sukhmel@tg
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 actually should read
It is sometimes said, common sense is very rare
as written by Voltaire, it appears, but I didn’t know that and only met derivatives of this quote.
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
The team I’m part of wants to ditch Nix in favour of just about anything, because no one wants to maintain Nix and everyone sees it as just source of problems :(
I agree that it was complicated to learn Nix for me, too, but now I see benefits in it but I can’t make them change their mind and tired of trying. Nix could’ve been much easier to advocate for if the language itself wasn’t this esoteric
I may be too far from Python to tell, but it looks kind of incorrect to equate the author and their product. What if Guido decides to stop contributing, will Python end then? Creators of Rust spoken about the fact that Rust went very much not the way they wanted it to, this doesn’t make them not creators, nor does it make Rust not Rust
First of all, thank you for a thoughtful response, I was too snarky, sorry about that.
TL;DR: guess I’m just upset that there is no objective way of measuring how much knowledge is required, and trying to read everything from sources list would take forever.
Yeah, the last point is sort of a strawman, although I meant it not to highlight that explanations should be given in terms that the reader is used to, but rather that the reader may have quite arbitrary amount of prior knowledge.
I agree that there probably should be some shared context, what bugs me is that people tend to vary a lot in what amount of context is considered to be required. And more than once have I met papers that require deciphering even if you have some context and kind of come from the field they are written for. I used to think that this is our of malice to make reproducing their work harder for others, but maybe it was just an assumption of much larger shared context.
Tables markdown work in some clients, afaik, but I don’t remember which, and even if I saw it or imagined it
There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”
This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.
You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least