• Piatro@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 days ago

    I love the argument about c having type safety with the little side-swipe at rust. “AcTuAlLy C does have type safety! You just have to jump through the following 50 hoops to get it!”. I’m an outsider to both C and Rust but it’s still funny.

    • esa@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      It is pretty funny that C’s type system can be described pretty differently based on the speaker’s experience. The parable of the Blub language comes to mind.

  • esa@discuss.tchncs.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    I feel I gotta point out it’s a pretty funny example—email comes up so frequently as a thing that you’re recommended to neither parse nor validate, just try to send an email to the address and see if it works. If you need to know that it was received successfully, a link to click is the general method.

    But “parse, don’t validate” is still a generally good idea, no matter the example used. :)

    • thenextguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      I don’t see it. I would much prefer to validate early rather than late. The example of ‘other code might validate it differently or not at all’ seems specious. I don’t want invalid information “deep within the bowels of the system”.

      • esa@discuss.tchncs.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        Parsing is a way of “validating early”. You either get a successful parse and the program continues working on known-good data with that knowledge encoded in the type system, or you handle incorrect data as soon as it’s encountered.

  • bitcrafter@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    It is crazy to go to all of the extra trouble of dealing with an additional pointer for the email_t type, when it is just a struct that is a simple wrapper around a char * that could be passed around directly; a lot of the code in this example is just for dealing with having to manage the lifetime of the extra email_t allocation, which seems like an unnecessary hoop to jump through.

    • esa@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Isn’t that sort of just the cost of doing business in C? It’s a sparse language, so it falls to the programmer to cobble together more.

      I do also think the concrete example of emails should be taken as a stand-in. Errors like swapping a parameter for an email application is likely not very harmful and detected early given the volume of email that exists. But in other, less fault-tolerant applications it becomes a lot more valuable.