Re:You can't Rust that
by jstimpfle on Saturday March 31, 2018 @05:40PM
(#16725313)
Problems with multithreading and "perceived immutability" are two more things that can largely be ruled out with a clear dataflow architecture. For example, I try to not have "cycles" such that a function call overwrites a memory location that was a (pointer) argument to the caller. I don't think that should happen - where did the called function get the pointer from without the caller knowing?
An architecture with global data tables instead of OOP helps here, because it has much lower need for pointer arguments of unclear origin. I also agree very much with your approach "handles instead of pointers" (if by handles you mean integer array indices). Indices for example trivially survive reallocation of a dynamically growable array.
Re:You can't Rust that
by amarkov on Sunday April 01, 2018 @02:15PM
(#16729642)
Sure, but isn't that the point for Rust? You can rule out huge classes of problems with a clear dataflow architecture - thus, the language should enforce one, rather than requiring programmers to hand-roll one correctly.
An architecture with global data tables instead of OOP helps here, because it has much lower need for pointer arguments of unclear origin. I also agree very much with your approach "handles instead of pointers" (if by handles you mean integer array indices). Indices for example trivially survive reallocation of a dynamically growable array.