[pizlonator]

Rereading your post, I think I just disagree on two things:

I don’t think Rust users can be trivialized into the “two kinds” that you list, and if one of the kinds is “app developer” then I bet you there are apps where Fil-C’s value proposition is exactly right, except just the fact that Fil-C is so new and immature. Say you want to ship a native UI. Using GTK from fil-C is fantastic.

And I specifically disagree with:

> it does not free the developer from the difficulty of having to manually write memory-safe C code; their program will just crash if they get it wrong.

When I write new code in Fil-C, I just lean into the GC all the way, which makes programming in C and C++ so much nicer. I don’t ref count, I don’t use smart pointers, I don’t free and I don’t delete. It makes these languages so much nicer!

Also, Fil-C’s guarantee that it will panic on OOB or if a race goes badly means I spend basically zero time debugging memory safety issues. The reliability of the failures totally changes the dev experience for the better.

That’s subjective obviously. Some folks swear by type systems like Rust’s to catch as many issues as possible. That’s just not how I roll.

All of that said - the reason to use rust and not Fil-C is performance and memory usage. Fil-C isn’t there yet, except for maybe a small handful of cases (like BLAKE3 and xzutils, where the overhead is basically zero for some reason … we’ll probably because I did a lot of compiler opts and sometimes you get lucky and they sort of all hit)

[wild_pointer]

> That’s subjective obviously. Some folks swear by type systems like Rust’s to catch as many issues as possible. That’s just not how I roll.

Yeah, I like it. I also like not caring about dangling pointers, UAF, and other things, not even because of security. These are just bugs that are not fun to debug.

But I get the appeal of the freedom of C++. Especially if you deal with FFI and low level stuff, Rust either forces you to write safe wrappers (good investment long-term, but not fun to do), or just use lots of unsafe, in which case there's no benefit.

This, and there's also cargo which is convenient.

> When I write new code in Fil-C, I just lean into the GC all the way, which makes programming in C and C++ so much nicer.

Then it's no longer C/C++. More like C++/CLI maybe. And it probably gets tricky with FFI. Anyway, keep it up on making the world a safer place :)

[nu11ptr]

> When I write new code in Fil-C, I just lean into the GC all the way, which makes programming in C and C++ so much nicer. I don’t ref count, I don’t use smart pointers, I don’t free and I don’t delete. It makes these languages so much nicer!

Sure, GC's are nice which is why so many langs have them, but that removes the deterministic allocation performance which most C/C++ programmers want (and many times need). Why not just use something like Go then? You have a much richer stdlib available out of the box.

[quotemstr]

> Also, Fil-C’s guarantee that it will panic on OOB or if a race goes badly

Fil-C as currently implemented does not guarantee panics on unsafe accesses due to races. You dodge the problem by using a private definition of safety under data race that permits program executions nobody would expect.

[pizlonator]

I define memory safety in terms of capabilities, which is a mainstream definition.

The worst that can happen in a race is that you read or write an object that would have been accessible even in the absence of races.

The thing that makes races hard to debug in C or C++ is memory corruption; that doesn’t happen in Fil-C

[mirashii]

I’m having a hard time understanding how these two things can be true at once. Just because the capability exists that somewhere in my program a valid pointer to a piece of memory might exist (what I understand accessible to mean), doesn’t mean that a particular write to that memory location under a data race that tears a pointer is valid. The data race may make a pointer that would never algorithmically appear in the program in the absence of races, and thus make writes that invalidate invariants that should have been preserved. It seems to me this still provides a way to corrupt memory in a difficult to debug way just like C. Am I missing something?

[mirashii]

I've spent some more time over the last day looking at Fil-C more closely, and come to the conclusion that this:

> The thing that makes races hard to debug in C or C++ is memory corruption; that doesn’t happen in Fil-C

is just blatantly false. It's almost as easy to corrupt memory in Fil-C as it is in C. Type confusion is still allowed. You can still do out of bounds buffer reads/writes as long as they fall within an allocation, so any intra-object stuff, as you might get in common packet or binary file parsing, is still about as unsafe as it was before.