Comment by fooker
7 hours ago
Reminds me of “A monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?”
As you write this, do you not start to see why this would be confusing?
Yes, C++ is pretty bad at this too.
The fact that these exist and the programmer has to always be consciously be aware of it is an indication that something has gone wrong in the language design.
Imagine if you were to write C code in 1970, but you always had to keep track of which registers each variable corresponded to. That is how I look at these.
(There were, indeed, early 'high level' languages that required you to do this :)
> The facts that these exist and the programmer has to always be consciously be aware of it
This is what separates a systems programming language suitable for OS and embedded development from managed languages, which are not.
The complexity ultimately stems from unavoidable details of the hardware. Languages which do not offer similar representations will be incapable of making full use of the underlying hardware, including writing certain projects like bootloaders, firmwares, OSes, etc. Rust is pretty close to state-of-the-art in terms of providing reasonable abstractions over the hardware.
It sounds to me like you're used to managed languages with a runtime which are great for certain applications, but unable to be specific enough about memory layout, how data is formatted in memory, etc. for some tasks. Those choices were made for you by the language runtime's authors and necessarily limit the language's applicability to some problems. Rust, C++, and other systems programming languages don't have such limitations, but require you to understand more of the complexity of what the system is actually doing.
Any language which provides adequate representations for taking full advantage of the hardware is going to be on a similar order of complexity as Rust, C++, or other systems programming languages, because the hardware is complex. Managed languages can be nice for introducing folks to programming, precisely because much of the complexity is hidden in the runtime, but that can be a double edged sword when it comes time to approach a systems level task.
Instead of wishing the language didn't offer those representations, it may be more productive to ask why C++ and Rust converged on such similar ones. Exploration of that question will be enlightening.
None of these have anything to do to do with memory layout or how data is formatted in the memory. You are arguing a different point than the one being discussed here.
These are fundamentally hacks around the compiler’s inability to understand ownership and lifetimes, at least the way Rust (and C++) are designed.
These exist in Rust because otherwise you would have to use unsafe blocks all the time to write any reasonable code.
Safe threading seems like fully exploiting hardware features to me. That's the biggest thing smart pointers and Rc, Arc, and Cell types enable. Perhaps I could have been clearer.
The comment about memory layout was an additional point that dealing with hardware requires that you format, align, and position information in memory as the hardware expects, which requires either exposing those details, or encoding them in a runtime.
6 replies →
There should be no such difference. The bigger problem is that OS's enforce this duality when in fact there should only be application level software and an absolutely tiny core to handle IPC and scheduling. This then allows you to enforce the boundaries between various bits far more strictly.
It seems like you think that some shadowy cabal somewhere decided to differentiate systems languages from managed languages and keep them divided. That is not the case. The distinction describes how the language has been implemented, which is based on the choices of the language authors alone, and is usually down to practical considerations about how to implement the thing at all.
Saying "There should be no such difference." is a bit like saying bicycles should be allowed on the highway and semi trucks should be accepted on walking paths. The difference is inherent in the thing. A result of how they were built. And what they can and can't accomplish as a result.
1 reply →