|
|
|
|
|
|
by davemp
10 days ago
|
|
|
Looks like Mr. Kelly agrees with you. From the zen of zig: - Runtime crashes are better than bugs. - Compile errors are better than runtime crashes. - Incremental improvements. - Avoid local maximums. Considering every memory safe language that I’m aware of panics on index out of bounds, there’s spectrum here. Personally, I’d like to see refinement types that allow people to elide the runtime overhead/panics. Though that may be too much complexity to stomach. |
|
|
... what? No one is going to argue against those vague statements. He obviously does not agree with people that put more weight on making things compile errors instead of runtime errors. Which is fine, but saying he is in agreement is nonsense.
> Considering every memory safe language that I’m aware of panics on index out of bounds, there’s spectrum here.
Many of those languages go to great lengths to avoid raw indexing: rich iterators, arenas with branded indexes, checked gets, and so on... But, sure, if you ignore all that and do `get(i).unwrap()`. Then, yes, things are exactly the "same".
I have no problem with people choosing the set of tradeoffs that works for their context. I have a problem with people acting like those tradeoffs don't exist.