lad

Are we still talking about COBOL?

To be fair, I disagree with all the points author makes, except for performance which is important but may be less important than code clarity in different cases. I am surprised that exceptions perform that well, and I am surprised the author said that compared C++ exceptions to Rust results, but actually did the right thing and compared C++ exceptions with C++ expected first. I thought it was going to be one of those “let’s compare assembly to lisp”

Yeah, I shaped my words poorly. What I meant is that errors are sort of equivalent to exceptions, but errors are first class citizens of type system, and this is an improvement over exceptions being kind of independent of type

Have you ever worked at large old corporation? Wasting money is a bit of an underestimation on that scale.

Also, not all banks use COBOL, but the ones that don’t are usually much younger.

Besides, Ada would’ve been a better example, as it is used by telecoms and seems to be held in high regard, unlike COBOL. The only issue with Ada I heard of is that it’s on par with C++ in complexity which is far from being simple.

I’m just going to ask, without making assumptions. Have you managed to cut some time to read the article and find an answer?

you never know what code your function or library calls that can produce an exception

As far as I remember, there were several attempts at introducing exceptions into type system, and all have failed to a various degree. C++ abandoned the idea completely, Java has a half-assed exception signature where you can always throw an unexpected exception if it’s runtime exception, mist likely there were other cases, too.

So yeah, exception as part of explicit function signature is a vast improvement, I completely agree

I feel like this will have zero protection against

if (result.isSuccess()) {
    handle_error(result.error);
} else {
    do_something(result.value);
}

Besides, this is exactly what the comment said about having to constantly check for return values at call site. I think this may be mitigated by some clever macro-magic, but that will become a mess fast.

It’s used because the ones who use it have enough money to pay for any problems that may arise from it’s use, and known problems are deemed better than unknown ones.

It is a viable model when you have enough money and resources, but a conservative one

That way we’ll just find maintainers went near extinct over time, just like COBOL developers that are as rare as they are expensive. Only Linux kernel isn’t a bank, and maybe will not have as much money to pay to rare developers capable of maintaining C codebase

Ach, well, a known method to create a nice discussion

I’m not familiar with slackware but why is specific kernel called generic, while generic one is not called generic? I’m puzzled

Well, yeah, it is everywhere, but I wouldn’t say that it’s a good language to learn in 2024

Better start with this book, Rust will feel natural after that:

But you are right, it is better suited for one things and worse for other. It’s not strictly functional, though, and most likely when it will have been maturing for as long as C++ or at least C# it will also have tools and features that make it better suited even for game development

26 isn’t old, if you don’t mean that’s your commercial experience with C amount, then it is

It’s just an old rant, some people can’t get over the fact systemd exists

This is the art level of fuckery, making it this bad was definitely harder than making it okay

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Octopus TV-shop delivers to an elderly lady that forgot to buy pickles for the salad. Nothing out of the ordinary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

uBlock Origin is also not piracy, but it is the real way to block

What do you mean, “you people”?