News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on C for All. Parent comment

Re:C for All by ori_b on Friday March 23, 2018 @02:50PM (#16661397)
Fair point, but changing the language won't change the amount of global state. and the associated complexity, nor will it make subsystem supervision work correctly. Changing the language will not prevent unbounded recursion or the associated stack overflows and subsystem failures. Changing the language will not fix mis-analysis of task switching overhead. And changing the language will not fix manufacturing issues with the PCBs.

As far as I'm aware, one of the very few toolchains that even try to improve on this over C are Ada/SPARK.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by vvanders on Friday March 23, 2018 @03:51PM (#16662015)
> but changing the language won't change the amount of global state

Global mutable state is marked as Unsafe in Rust.

> nor will it make subsystem supervision work correctly

Erlang is built specifically around this concept.

Perfect is the enemy of good here, throwing out a whole language due to one case doesn't help anyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by ori_b on Friday March 23, 2018 @04:04PM (#16662159)
> Global mutable state is marked as Unsafe in Rust.

It's also the simplest way to avoid dynamic allocation and the associated OOM issues. So, short of doing static analysis to bound heap usage at compile time, that makes things worse.

And Toyota already got the static analysis wrong for their stack usage. At least globals will fail to compile if they won't fit.

[ Parent | on HN ]