Comment by sidkshatriya
1 month ago
Thanks for your reply.
> It's a hard language design question and people focusing on this specific case have not really considered how it effects anything else. Sadly, language features and constructs are rarely isolated from other things, even the architecture of the code the programmer writes
And my suggestion is that Rust has got the balance right when it comes to pointers. I can use the traditional unsafe nullable pointer *SomeStruct when it can be null and use &SomeStruct when it cannot be NULL in Rust. Initialization can be a bit painful in Rust but the wins are worth it. Yes, initialization can be less efficient in Rust but then most of the time spent is spend in algorithms when they run, not during initialization of the data structure.
Rust has needless complexity when it comes to asynchronous programming. The complexity is off the charts and the language just becomes unusable. But the non-async subset of Rust feels consistent and well engineered from a programming theory perspective.
In summary, Rust has not compromised itself by using non-null references as the default pointer type and neither will Odin, if it takes a different approach towards references. Take the example of OCaml - it also takes a very principled approach towards NULL. OTOH Java suffers from NULL problems as every object could be null in disguise.
Nevertheless Odin is a remarkably clean and powerful language and I'm following its progress closely ! Thanks for building it !
Unfortunately I don't think you've understand what I was I trying to say.
Rust was designed from day-0 around explicit individual-value based initialization. Odin from day-0 was not designed around this (explicitly).
This ever so minor choice might not seem like a big thing to you, as you have stated in your comment, but it leads to MASSIVE architectural decisions later on when the user programs.
Odin could not "just add" non-nil pointers and it be "fine". It would actually not be Odin any more, and the entire language would not even be a C alternative any more, and feel much more like C++ or Rust. Rust and OCaml (which Rust is based off) are different kinds of languages to Odin and their approach does not translate well to what Odin (or C) is trying to do.
Unfortunately I will not be able to explain this to you in a comment or article, and it is something that takes a while to understand since it is a subtle effect of locality affecting globality. The best video on this might be from Casey Muratori: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt1KNDmOYqA
> Yes, initialization can be less efficient in Rust but then most of the time spent is spend in algorithms when they run, not during initialization of the data structure.
Sadly this isn't as true as you think it is. I've written a lot of C++ code before and doing its boilerplate for ctors/dtors actually leads to much slower code in general, and I'd argue this does apply to Rust too. Most of the time isn't necessarily spent in "algorithms", especially when "algorithms" also include initialization of values. You've turned something which could be O(1) into at best O(N), which does not help when things scale, especially with "algorithms".