News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Checked C. Parent comment

Re:Checked C by egeozcan on Friday February 19, 2021 @12:48PM (#26195712)
But you can't just add types to C and it becomes rust. It needs serious refactoring. You'd probably go lib by lib, whereas you can rename a JS file to TS and it starts checking types (even without, if you configure it that way).

By the way, I love rust, but I just don't understand the "rewrite all the things" hype. Being battle tested means a lot for low-level libs. You can't guarantee that you ported everything exactly, with bugs and all. Pragmatic solutions like "Checked C" prove a lot in that regard.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Checked C by TazeTSchnitzel on Friday February 19, 2021 @12:56PM (#26195819)
> you can't just add types to C and it becomes Rust

You actually can “just” turn C into Rust with something like c2rust. But you haven't gained any safety without refactoring.

Is that not also the case for Checked C?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Checked C by egeozcan on Sunday February 21, 2021 @08:43AM (#26213373)
You cannot be sure that you kept 100% of the semantics when you use c2rust. You need to focus on semantics plus the types. With checked c, you can just keep your focus on the types.
[ Parent | on HN ]