undefined | Better HN

0 pointsw10-17mo ago0 comments

Readers would benefit from distinguishing effects systems from type systems - error handling, async code, ownership, pointers escaping, etc. are all better understood as effects because they pertain to usage of a value/type (though the usage constraints can depend on the type properties).

Similarly, Java sidesteps many of these issues in mostly using reference types, but ends up with a different classes of errors. So the C/pointer family static analysis can be quite distinct from that for JVM languages.

Swift is roughly on par with Rust wrt exclusivity and data-race safety, and is catching up on ownership.

Rust traits and macros are really a distinguishing feature, because they enable programmer-defined constraints (instead of just compiler-defined), which makes the standard library smaller.

0 comments

ModernMech7mo ago

Swift has such a long way to go in general ergonomics of its type system, it's so far behind compared to Rust. The fact that the type checker will just churn until it times out and asks the user to refactor so that it can make progress is such a joke to me, I don't understand how they shipped that with a straight face.

zozbot2347mo ago

There's nothing wrong with this in principle, every type system must reject some valid programs. There's no such thing as a "100%" type system that will both accept all valid code and reject all non-valid code.

ModernMech7mo ago

I'm not questioning the principle, I'm critiquing the implementation versus the competition. Swift doesn't do a good job, it throws up its hands too often.

vlovich1237mo ago

If you solve 80% of the problems by spending 20% of the time, is it worth spending the 80% to solve 20% of the problems? Or even if it is, is it more valuable to ship the 80% complete solution first to get it into the hands of users while you work on the thornier version?

Mond_7mo ago

If someone else ships a 100% solution, or a solution that doesn't have the problems your potentially half-baked "80% solution" does, then you might be in trouble.

There's a fine line here: it matters a lot whether we're talking about a "sloppy" 80% solution that later causes problems and is incredibly hard to fix, or if it's a clean minimal subset, which restricts you (by being the minimal thing everyone agrees on) but doesn't have any serious design flaws.

1 more reply

timeon7mo ago

Swift even if catching up a bit is probably not going to impose strict border between safe and unsafe.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsw10-17mo ago0 comments

Swift is roughly on par with Rust wrt exclusivity and data-race safety, and is catching up on ownership.

Rust traits and macros are really a distinguishing feature, because they enable programmer-defined constraints (instead of just compiler-defined), which makes the standard library smaller.

0 comments

ModernMech7mo ago

zozbot2347mo ago

ModernMech7mo ago

I'm not questioning the principle, I'm critiquing the implementation versus the competition. Swift doesn't do a good job, it throws up its hands too often.

vlovich1237mo ago

Mond_7mo ago

If someone else ships a 100% solution, or a solution that doesn't have the problems your potentially half-baked "80% solution" does, then you might be in trouble.

1 more reply

timeon7mo ago

Swift even if catching up a bit is probably not going to impose strict border between safe and unsafe.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse