More of my philosophy about the too much purism philosophy of Rust and
From Amine Moulay Ramdane@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 11 13:59:31 2021
More of my philosophy about the too much purism philosophy of Rust and more..
I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
I think i am smart, and i think that Rust compiler and language is too much "purist", it looks like the too much purism of Haskell functional programming language, since i say that Rust doesn't provide us with OOP inheritance, but it is too much
restrictive, and it is the deficiency of Rust, since inheritance has advantages and disadvantages, so we have to balance well and provide also with inheritance so that to be efficient, so i think that C++ and C# are better than Rust in this regard, and
here is the advantages and disadvantages of OOP inheritance, :
More of my philosophy about NP-hard problems and about Rust and C++..
I think i am smart and i have just quickly looked at Rust compiler and i think that since the Rust compiler has included race detection so
it is NP-hard, so that means that Rust compiler will never know in race detection which of races are real race conditions(Read here in the following paper so that to understand it: https://www.sjsu.edu/people/robert.chun/courses/cs159/s3/Y.pdf), and,
this is the reason why it is difficult to use a tool to find race conditions accurately, so then i think that C++ is still useful by using it with Threadsanatizer and Address sanatizer even if C++ is getting complex as i just said the following:
Also C++ has the following problem:
- C++ is a highly complex language. Learning and fully understanding C++
requires a huge learning effort. C++ code does not always do what one
would ‘intuitively’ expect from looking at the source code. At the
same time, the high complexity of C++ increases the probability of
compiler errors. C++ compiler writers are only humans, after all.
More of my philosophy about C++ and Rust and Microsoft and safety-critical systems..
I invite you to read the following from Microsoft about Rust programming language:
Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe Systems Programming
I think that the above article is not correct, since i think that
Rust is suited for safety-critical systems, so i think Rust is better
than C++ in the safety-critical systems, but i think that C++ will
still be useful with the Address sanitizer and ThreadSanatizer,
and read my below thoughts since i have just added something in them:
More of my philosophy about memory safety and inheritance in programming languages..
"Address sanitization is not a security feature, nor does it provide memory-safety: it's a debugging tool. Programmers already have tools to detect that the code they've written has memory problems, such as use-after-free or memory leaks. Valgrind is
probably the best-known example. This gcc feature provides (some of) the same functionality: the only new thing is that it's integrated with the compiler, so it's easier to use.
You wouldn't have this feature turned on in production: it's for debugging only. You compile your tests with this flag, and automatically they detect memory errors that are triggered by the test. If your tests aren't sufficient to trigger the problem,
then you still have the problem, and it'll still cause the same security flaws in production.
Rust's ownership model prevents these defects by making programs that contain such defects invalid: the compiler will not compile them. You don't have to worry about your tests not triggering the problem, because if the code compiles, there cannot be a
The two features are for different sets of problems. One feature of address sanitization is to detect memory leaks (allocating memory and neglecting to free it later). Rust makes it harder to write memory leaks than in C or C++, but it's still possible (
if you have circular references). Rust's ownership model prevents data races in sequential and multi-threaded situations (see below). Address sanitization doesn't aim to detect either of those cases. But you can use ThreadSanatizer"
And using just plain C#, it has better memory protection, since the GC and runtime make it impossible to leak, double-free, or access out-of-bounds. C# has unsafe blocks just like Rust does. Safe Rust is just as safe from memory safety problems as safe C#
I think that a programming language has to provide "inheritance",
and the new Rust programming language doesn't provide it and i think that it is a deficiency in Rust, here is why:
As a software developer you have to become more efficient and productive. So you need to make sure the code you write is easily reusable and maintainable. And, among other things, this is what inheritance gives you - the ability to reuse without
reinventing the wheel, as well as the ability to easily maintain your base object without having to perform maintenance on all similar objects.