|
|
|
|
|
|
by estebank
2231 days ago
|
|
|
I would dispute that those common patterns are indeed safe, even if they could be argued they are when first written because code changes and can suddenly break your preconditions if they aren't enforced in the code itself. C codebases then follow certain defensive programming customs to avoid reading uninitialized or out of bounds memory, at the cost of some performance. This is the right trade-off in C but, funnily enough, the more restrictive borrow checker has the opposite effect as you can give out inmutable and mutable references with wanton abandon because they get checked for unsafe behavior. It's the same difference as a a gun where the best practice is to keep it unchambered at all times to avoid the risk of a misfire, and a more modern gun with a safety: it's one more thing to think about but it actually smoothes the operation. |
|
|
The restriction of immutability spares the programmer from worrying about whether unknown parts of the codebase are going to decide to mutate an object.
JavaScript's single-thread restriction (not counting web-workers) closes the door on all manner of nasty concurrent-programming problems that can arise in languages that promote overuse of threads. (Last I checked, NetBeans uses over 20 threads.)
Back to the example at hand, C has no restrictions, but that hobbles the programmer when it comes to reasoning about the way memory is handled in a program. It's completely free-form. Rust takes a more restrictive approach, and even enables automated reasoning. (Disclaimer: I don't know much about Rust.)