I mean, at the end of the day, if you really understand your language of choice, you know that it is jusf a bunch of fancy libraries and compiler tricks of top of C. So in my mind, I’m a fully evolved programmer in a language, when I could write anything I can write in that language in C instead.
Or, rather, most compiled languages are just syntactic sugar on top of assembly, and that’s especially true with C. (Oh, you can use curly brances and stuff for blocks? That’s sure easier to read than the label mess you get with assembly.)
Fortran is from 1957, LLVM is from 2003. It’s probably like C where there is a compiler tool chain that goes through LLVM like you describe and others that go directly to executables.
It’s not what you can use that language to do - all general purpose languages are Turing Complete, so what you can do with them is exactly equal. It is about what the language will do for you. Rust compiler will stop you from writing memory unsafe code, C compiler cannot do that.
Fun fact, some languages are not turing complete and I believe people would still consider them programming languages. They’re typically targeted at making mathematical proofs.
But how does the Rust compiler do that? What does it actually check? Could I write a compiler in C that does this check on a piece of Rust code?
C is so simplictic, that if I can write a piece of functionality in C, I must understand its inner workings fully. Not just how to use the feature, but how the feature works under the hood.
It is often pointless to actually implement the feature in C, since the feature already has a good implementation (see the Rust compiler for the memory safety). But understanding these features, and being able to mentally think about what it takes in C to implement them, is still helpfull for gaining an understanding of the feature.
Could I write a compiler in C that does this check on a piece of Rust code?
Well yes, but that code has to be written in Rust. The human has to follow rules to give the compiler a chance to check things.
C is so simplictic, that if I can write a piece of functionality in C, I must understand its inner workings fully. Not just how to use the feature, but how the feature works under the hood.
I don’t think that’s particularly more true of C than Rust or even Golang. In C you are frequently making function calls anyway for the real fun stuff. If you ever compile a “simplistic” chunk of C code that you think is obvious how it would compile to assembly and you open up the assembly output, you are likely to be very surprised with what the compiler chose to do. I’ve seen some professional C developers that never actually had a reason to fully understand how the stack works, since C abstracts that away and the implications of the stack don’t matter until you exceed some limitations.
Labelling the crab as C is sure to ruffle some exoskeletons…
As at least one nautically themed childrens’ book surely has it: C is for crab.
Coming at programming sideways feels more like a Haskell or Prolog thing, though.
Apple is for ADA
Ball is for BASH
Crab is for C
Dog is for D
Elephant is for Ecsmascript
Fox is for F#
Goat is for Go
House is for Haskell
Igloo is for
…okay I got stuck there.
Java has Duke
Ugh, I accidentally got a fake transparent background. Oh well.
Branding fail so bad that everyone forgets that Java even has a mascot.
There are dozens of us! Millions of devices and dozens of us know about Duke!
Fun fact, Duke is released to the public. I forget in what way exactly, but Oracle freed them (him? it?).
Igloo is for Idris
Jigsaw is for Java
King is for Kotlin
Lion is for LUA
Monkey is for …
Only those who lack a sense of humor.
I mean, at the end of the day, if you really understand your language of choice, you know that it is jusf a bunch of fancy libraries and compiler tricks of top of C. So in my mind, I’m a fully evolved programmer in a language, when I could write anything I can write in that language in C instead.
Or, rather, most compiled languages are just syntactic sugar on top of assembly, and that’s especially true with C. (Oh, you can use curly brances and stuff for blocks? That’s sure easier to read than the label mess you get with assembly.)
Assembly is a little too high level for me. I prefer to directly write machine code.
You may as well be a script kiddie. I leverage my very steady hand and highly magnetized needle to write my code
only true if your language compiles to c. fortran peeps are safe.
I thought it compiles to LLVM intermediate representation and then to the machine code of the requested platform arch. Am I missing something?
Fortran is from 1957, LLVM is from 2003. It’s probably like C where there is a compiler tool chain that goes through LLVM like you describe and others that go directly to executables.
only if you design it using llvm. llvm is pretty new.
Ah ok I was referring to Rust specifically. Thanks!
yeah but rednax wasn’t.
I’m an 80’s/90’s BASIC bitch, so I’m still irrelevant!
It’s not what you can use that language to do - all general purpose languages are Turing Complete, so what you can do with them is exactly equal. It is about what the language will do for you. Rust compiler will stop you from writing memory unsafe code, C compiler cannot do that.
Fun fact, some languages are not turing complete and I believe people would still consider them programming languages. They’re typically targeted at making mathematical proofs.
I did say “general purpose”. And many proof assistants are Turing Complete actually, such as Lean.
I did say “fun fact”.
But they’re only equal in the Turing complete sense, which (iirc) says nothing about performance or timing.
But how does the Rust compiler do that? What does it actually check? Could I write a compiler in C that does this check on a piece of Rust code?
C is so simplictic, that if I can write a piece of functionality in C, I must understand its inner workings fully. Not just how to use the feature, but how the feature works under the hood.
It is often pointless to actually implement the feature in C, since the feature already has a good implementation (see the Rust compiler for the memory safety). But understanding these features, and being able to mentally think about what it takes in C to implement them, is still helpfull for gaining an understanding of the feature.
Well yes, but that code has to be written in Rust. The human has to follow rules to give the compiler a chance to check things.
I don’t think that’s particularly more true of C than Rust or even Golang. In C you are frequently making function calls anyway for the real fun stuff. If you ever compile a “simplistic” chunk of C code that you think is obvious how it would compile to assembly and you open up the assembly output, you are likely to be very surprised with what the compiler chose to do. I’ve seen some professional C developers that never actually had a reason to fully understand how the stack works, since C abstracts that away and the implications of the stack don’t matter until you exceed some limitations.
I mean, yeah, most languages are turing complete.