> and sheer code execution performance is never the bottleneck in a realistic-sized system.
TIL that code execution perf doesn't matter and I've wasted almost a decade of my life focusing on it. Wow I wish you told me sooner!
What a ridiculous comment.
Ironically, that's exactly how you seem when just drop the "Turing completeness" bomb on a discussion about error handling. It's very hard not to see it as a ridiculously childish tantrum, since not only there's no actual argument, it is by definition impossible for it to be relevant to the discussion.
Anyway, I would not be writing this if it wasn't because you keep pumping direct personal attacks to everyone who dares counter your posts, which are already in a terrible tone.
Or, the obvious alternative that I was trying to point out: your analysis is wrong, and therefore, assuming the language is not useless, there must be a proper alternative to "panics everywhere" * that you are not accounting for !
https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/14/1099
* This is just to explicitly write the phrase again before it is (again) twisted as calling for a strict prohibition of all non-terminating conditions or some other childish nonsense.
Even unwinding panics (which are exceptions in all but name) can be an alternative, and Rust does support them.
That lkml post has zero relevance here. He's asking for fallible allocations. Which is totally reasonable.
Serious question: did you read the entire blog? If so, can you specifically point out passages you disagree with and why?
EDIT: And seriously, I started out this conversation with a serious comment asking you to elaborate on what you meant by asking something very concrete: how would you change the code example in my blog to conform to your view? You decided to flippantly respond with a non-answer in the first place. Why not go back to the original question I asked and give a real answer? If you don't know Rust, then use pseudo code. We're talking about a dozen lines here. It shouldn't take long.