I saw that it was due to Rust and even with the limited developer knowledge I have, the first thing I thought was "Wait, isn't the whole point of Rust that it's memory safe?", at least compared to C due to rules at compiling time or something like that?
The fuck are you talking about?
it actually is verified at compile time to safely do what you told it to, the problem is that all the result types in the language seem to have a fucking 6-letter method that will safely abort your program to the os if anything goes wrong
you just answered your own question!
it seems like a few languages use ! in identifiers to signal that there is something you have to watch out for. scheme programmers use it as "watch out, you're about to mutate a value" because scheme prefers functional programming. zig uses it as "watch out, this can throw an error" so you know you have to handle it. meanwhile rust uses ! for "watch out, you're using a macro" (???)
Rust syntax is incoherent by design for some reason. Whenever I see Rust code I'm reminded of how the Lua uses a bunch of really stupid syntax (i.e .. for the string concatenation operator) just for the sake of being different.
Lua gets away with it because the entire thing fits on a postcard. The monkey's paw curled when Rust programmers declared themselves "The new C++"
I feel so proud sharing a thread with someone who doesn’t understand that memory-safe is about preventing memory corruption, not preventing crashes.
Actually, no, not really. If you're willing to sacrifice turing completeness then it's possible to construct a language where halting is guaranteed. This is called a total functional language. It's been a thing since about 2006 or so. Like most things invented by white men (including and especially toilets) it has been systematically ignored by chinks and jeets. Such a language is actually very easy to specify: Disallow open recursion, permitting only either structural recursion or bounded generative recursion, thus guaranteeing by design that any recursive function will always run to completion.
It is almost like bad programmers can use bad patterns and write bad code in any language and no amount of language features can turn a bad programmer into a good programmer.
a language known for being directionless, being incredibly complicated, having painful syntax, being incompatible with random shit for no reason, and having proponents that make everybody sick
making fucking up harder than doing it the right way can make bad programmers have second thoughts about certain acts of bad programming though
That is true. But in this case it was the matter of making the "fuck things up" the easier path than doing things the right way.
I cant tell if this is bait or retarded.
Some problem with the screenshot, or just don't want to acknowledge its contents because it contradicts your performance claim? If the word "nigger" genuinely upsets you, you're on the wrong site.I cant tell if this is bait or retarded.
Oh I've got no problem with the word nigger, I just wanted to shorten your sperging down to something everyone else could make sense of.
try {...} with an empty catch block.
My condolences sarr. did you redeem
I just wrap my code in the language equivalent of:
while 1:
try:
all the code
except:
pass