caim

funny thing is that Malloc also behaves like an arena. When your program starts, Malloc reserves a lot of memory, and when your program ends, all this memory is released. Memory Leak ends up not being a problem with Memory Safety.

So, you will still need a borrow checker for the same reasons Rust needs one, and C/C++ also needed.

I really didn't expect that from the land of freedom. /s

- lol people really say whatever comes to their mind around here don't they?

Apple literally hired Chris Lattner in 2005 and made a team to work on LLVM. After GNU refused to integrate LLVM into GCC,

But Apple saw an opportunity to have its own C/C++ compiler.

To this day, Apple still has one core team working on LLVM.

Anyone can come in, add a feature/target, and then leave the project. But a of lot LLVM maintainers are hired by or indirectly big tech companies.

Swift has its own ABI and calling convention, so that makes sense that Apple adapted to it.

The system v abi doesn't say anything about syscall.

Windows x86_64 abi is the same abi for x86, for this reason, you can only pass arguments in 4 registers ( while unix uses 6 ) because x86 only had 8 registers.

I think people have expectations that are misaligned with history and reality about this, to be honest. We can't expect all OS to do things in the same way.

C was created to rewrite the UNIX system, and POSIX compliance is followed by all successors, with minimal differences.

When it became clear that "Itanium" was a failure, Microsoft couldn't just pull an ABI out of the box and break all applications, so they just reused the same x86 ABI.

You right. Always good to remember that Apple was and still is the main company behind LLVM.

Swift was built and its maintained by the same time that worked in LLVM.

And also, Swift has its own fork of LLVM and LLVM has built-in a lot of features designed for swift like calling convention and async transformation.

The amount of features swift has and is releasing at the same time it has its own LLVM version is just not a thing you can do without a lot of money and years of accumulated expertise.

Wow, thanks! I didn't know this project.

To parse C++ you need to perform typecheck and name resolution at the same time. And C++ is pretty complex so it's not a easy task.

Just parsing C++ is already a freaking hell.

It's no wonder that every other day a new mini C compiler drops in, while no one even attempts to parse C++.

That's great! Interop with C++ is such a complex task. Congratss on your work! It's definitely not an easy thing.

I've always wondered what is the best way to interact with C++ template instantiation while keeping performance.

For a static language, you'd probably need to translate your types to C++ during compilation, ask Clang/GCC/MSVC to compile the generated C++ file, and then link the final result.

And finally, pray to the computer gods that name mangiling was done right.

C ABI is the system V abi for Unix, since C was literally created for it. And that is the abi followed by pretty much any Unix successor: Linux, Apple's OS, FreeBSD.

Windows has its own ABI.

The different abi is pretty much legacy and the fact that x86_64 ABI was built by AMD + Linux etc, while Microsoft worked with Intel for the Itanium abi.

Yep, that's true. But multiple immutable shared references are a form of contraction, while mutable references are actually affine.

Swift doesn't have references like Rust, and you can't even have unsafe raw pointers to variables without producing a dangling pointer, but this makes Swift more restrictive and less powerful than Rust.

Yeah, that makes sense. The Rust type system isn't "affine" as in affine logic. Rust allows different forms of contraction, which affine logic strictly prohibits.

And some people like to claim that the Curry-Howard correspondence proves something about their type system, but this is only true for dependently typed languages.

And the proofs aren't about program behavior.

See, https://liamoc.net/forest/loc-000S/index.xml

Great work! Also, the error messages are neat!

The main point of Affine logic is that it doesn't allow contraction, and the Rust type system does allow different forms of contraction. How exactly is Rust an "affine language"?

Also, the claims about Curry-Howard correspondence are wrong. It does not prove that rust is an affine language: https://liamoc.net/forest/loc-000S/index.xml

But Swift DOES have affine types with the "Non copyable" types that doesn't allow contraction.

Funny thing is that you can get undefined behavior and segfaults using only "safe rust", and the rust compiler has subtle bugs that allow you to disable important checks (like type checking), which can leave your code completely broken.

But for some crazy propaganda, rust devs believes that any rust code is safe and sound no matter what.

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs/issues/49

And how would you conclude that "fast"?

You can have UB in "safe rust".

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

You can even disable the Type check, trait check and borrow check in "safe rust"

And all of this is unsound.

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/i-finally-found-the-cheat-code...