Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Lot of stawman arguments.
Wouldn't be a authentic pjmlp comment unless they shit on C/C++ and/or praise Java/.NET with a bunch of straw-men :)
How wrong you are, C++ isn't in the same league as C, Microsoft was right not wanting to keep updating their C support.

It was already outdated by the time Borland released Turbo C++ 1.0 for MS-DOS, and only got new wind thanks to GNU FOSS and their manifest to prefer C as the main compiled language for GNU projects.

Everywhere else outside UNIX, was going with a mix of C++ for OS frameworks, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Be, Nokia, Epoch,....

Naturally given the option, between C, C++ and something else I might prefer that something else, however I managed a few interesting positions exactly due to my C++ skills, and interests.

So don't mix my preferences for C and C++ on the same basket.

loading story #49255949
Really?! That is how many in C circles, including your regular comments to my comments happen to be like.

Two measures two weights, in C versus other systems languages.

Maybe provide a concrete example instead of making vague accusations. Or rather, please not, it is not a useful discourse. A productive response to my comment would be an insightful explanation of how byte-level access to memory objects is done in other languages.
> explanation of how byte-level access to memory objects is done in other languages.

I'm not pjmlp but I can explain this for the case of Rust, where this works a bit like C but with a few interesting differences.

Mainly, in Rust there is not a concept of a "memory object" per se in the runtime semantics. Memory is made of allocations and allocations are made of bytes. Unlike C, bytes are guaranteed to be 8 bits in size. Every byte of memory can hold integer values (0x00 to 0xff), pieces of a pointer or be uninitialized. That means there is nothing like strict aliasing, and therefore no need to have special rules for byte-level access. You can alias any type as any other type, so long as you avoid all the other sources of UB (out-of-bounds access, uninitialized memory access etc.).

The way to practically access this is much the same as in C. You can do things like cast pointers between different types and project a pointer to a struct to a pointer to one of its fields. It should be noted that, unlike with major C implementations, structs do not have a stable, well-defined layout, so if you do manual pointer math you need to put #[repr(C)] on the struct to get C layout rules (which might still yield platform-dependent field offsets, e.g. size_t is not the same size everywhere).

Note also that these are the dynamic rules of Rust, you need to follow these when writing unsafe code to avoid UB. The static rules of safe Rust are much more restrictive and don't allow much at all. It is possible to write unsafe code that exposes safe abstractions for this, one example is the "bytemuck" crate. It provides macros that can parse a type definition to check certain properties (e.g. well-defined layout, no padding) and then provide you with safe functions for byte-level access. Since there is no strict aliasing, for certain types you can also get safe functions for access at other granularities. For example:

  #[repr(C)] struct Foo {
    x: u32,
    y: u16,
    z: u16
  }
can be safely accessed as an array of u32 values (uint32_t in C), but

  #[repr(C)] struct Bar {
    x1: u16,
    x2: u16,
    y: u16,
    z: u16
  }
can not, for alignment reasons.
loading story #49257534
Easy accessible in a NEWP, Mesa, PL/I, Modula-2 or Ada manual, on how to map structs into byte arrays.

Or for something more modern either D or C++ will do.

Examples omitted on request.

> That is how many in C circles

Being able to find someone who's made the argument you're rebutting doesn't make it not a straw man. What matters is whether the person you're arguing with is making the argument.

Specifically this:

> When other languages have compiler specific extensions beyond the spec, it is a failure in their design.

Is not a point I've seen anyone here make.