I wouldn't call it "tragedy of the commons" because the very idea was coined as a strawman. As far as I'm concerned, the entire concept is a fallacy, and people should stop perpetuating it.
As I understand it, WASM GC provides a number of low level primitives that are managed by the WASM host runtime, which would theoretically allow languages like Go or Python to slim down how much of their own language runtime needs to be packaged into the WASM module.
But how those languages still need to carry around some runtime of their own, and I don't think it's obvious how much a given language will benefit.
Programming languages with type erasure would have no runtime, just raw program code and the WASM GC. Languages that have runtime types still need a runtime for that functionality.
>But how those languages still need to carry around some runtime of their own
Also just there will be a special version of those language runtimes which probably won't be supported in 10 years time. Just like a lot of languages no longer have up to date versions that can run on the common language runtime.
I'm not who you were asking, but my only experiences with vlang was years ago when its marketing was making false claims about what its capabilities were, while pretending to be an already production-ready language. This in turn harbored tons of distrust about any of its promises of future capabilities too.
At this point, I don't think it matters if the V programming language has actually fixed all of those issues and its marketing is completely truthful now. The language's perception is tainted, and it'll take a herculean effort to fix that.
There's no special tooling to catch this, because nobody catches an error with if-else—it's simply not idiomatic. Everyone uses switch statements in the catch block, and I've never seen anybody using anything other than switch, when catching an error.
Ok, while it's cool that the TigerBeetle link now shows no matches (down from two) the comment now feels wrong. Anyways, you guys left in the `!= error.` checks, so here's some snapshots that hopefully won't be invalidated :P
If I just need to check for 1 specific error and do something why do I need a switch?
In Rust you have both "match" (like switch) and "if let" which just pattern matches one variant but both are properly checked by the compiler to have only valid values.
The real problem is not about the if-else, its that he's comparing to the global error set, and not to the FileError error set he created specifically to define AccessDenied.
“There’s no specific tooling to catch this, because nobody[…]”. So? This is a standard library/language feature, which is usually the first place people go for features in the language. To say that nobody uses it is stupid.
I have not seen much of any anti-Rust sentiment in the community. There's a lot of people in the community who do Rust, like rust, and work on rust projects. If the Zig community has an anti-anything sentiment, it's against C++.
Tell that to the “VP of community @ zig software foundation” who spend a significant fraction of its time insulting Rust maintainers or mere users here or on Twitter when he's not busy writing anti-Rust rants on his blog.
(You won't have to seek long in his HN history to find an instance of such behavior)
You are projecting. Personally speaking, I would choose Electron waaaay before I'd choose GTK. That probably wasn't an option for his optimized terminal, but would be Good Enough™ for just about anything else.
Or at least the oldest one made before glibc's latest backwards incompatible ABI break.
reply