[TUHS] Algol rules: was something about Rust is not C++

ron minnich wrote in <CAP6exY+Qz2Oe4gC4D1Fqy22JKKDaanTOYpc0gxugBv485JUknQ(a)mail.gmail.com>: |That example was a simplified bit of code from a widely used code base. All |I need to do is change the function g go a pointer to function, or have it |be provided by a .so, and all bets are off. | |In any event, the important thing here is not that y should be initialized, |or should not; it's that it is not possible to get a consistent answer on |the question, from people who have been writing in C for decades. I find the syntax just terrible. (I have not programmed with it.) I mean annotations are for the better, ok, (but i luckily get away with only "const" and "volatile" (and "mutable"), and leave things like "restrict" be a good man). Johannes Lundberg i think it was who then left FreeBSD (?) but pointing to a Rust program he had written (i cannot find the reference), that was a few years ago (i looked once i composed this message first, it might even had been as early as 2017!), and i was lucky i do not have to deal with it. Even nim-lang.org that at least converted its code to plain C back in the day when it was still called Nimrod is too heavy for me now, but claims to be hard realtime aware etc. It at least tries to give programmers some syntactic sugar that makes people happy when they look at the screen for 7 hours (underpaid) or 16 hours (over-ambitioned). Like the only python thing i like, the syntax sugar. But as languages grow they get more and more "refined", and now i read things like type BinaryTree*[T] = ref object # BinaryTree is a generic type with # generic param `T` le, ri: BinaryTree[T] # left and right subtrees; may be nil data: T # the data stored in a node proc newNode*[T](data: T): BinaryTree[T] = # constructor for a node new(result) result.data = data which gets me off a bit and makes me think that "hey, maybe Objective-C is not really the worst thing" (despite the syntax). I do not know. Everything beyond a small monolithic self-contained thing is a problem per se. You can then unit test atomically, and if thousands of modules do that, you plug them to a better whole. But that also not a good answer, all those flakes that live their own life, many maybe even in remote locations out of any control. You could have a language which hard fixates all the call chain, or you could have tools which bring this to a small and simple language which does not offer it. A compiler can figure out which variables are assigned etc and could create in-object-file annotations which the linker automatically verifies. Of course there are many code paths through functions. Back in 2009 when i bought the one Apple i wanted to have i tried out their Development software, which i think required internet access. All the pop-ups and titles, i think it (later?) could compile on-the-fly and inject the new object in the running tested application, etc. And then there are semantic description languages like interface builders, where robots create the actual code. So then you could have Corba interface descriptions / DBUS and plug it all via it. Then Rob Pike says "make it a string" (more or less), and luckily i do not have dyslexia. Maybe Qt has a good answer by not only not banishing the C preprocessor, but introducing another one on top. So then the compiler can analyze the code and generate a correct variable-state-at-function-call-time state that a dynamic linker could then verify against the consumer or producer (whatever is needed) of linked modules, that link modules, that link modules, all of which are subject to replacements due to development iterations, bug patches etc, ie, new releases. As in, the library versioning that is used for ELF object files, today often even linker scripts which furtherly diversify this, offer are not enough, they do not do this. They only bundle a name to a library version, or multiple (as in 1966 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 13 realpath@@GLIBC_2.3 33 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 13 realpath(a)GLIBC_2.2.5) I do not know how Rust deals with this. Is it at all possible to fixate all the call chain over all possibly involved dynamics? What do i gain from initializing an object with a default value if that default value is not not not not one of the values that i expect after some external function is called? Sure i not rarely see patches fly by where one more memset(,0,) is used to fully initialize a struct / prevent memory address disclosures (i only track BSDs). And there are still patches that fix bugs on old code that sometimes is twenty years or more, say zlib or tzcode. And then there are compiler bugs that bring in bugs -- that is not avoidable, even if the documentation is clear and obvious like /* The application can compare zlibVersion and ZLIB_VERSION for consistency. If the first character differs, the library code actually used is not compatible with the zlib.h header file used by the application. This check is automatically made by deflateInit and inflateInit. */ That is only graspable by a human programmer that reads it. Rapid application development that surely is not. (And actually i am not sure this is really true. But i personally would hope for it. It is more earthy, and has more blood, sweat and tears.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)