Programmer Humor

Behold: PRQL. I only know it exists not if the errors are good, my SQL needs are simple, but perhaps for some complex data wrangling it could be nicer idk

Feels like some arcane divination magic, I WANT IT

If you’re getting a segfault in C++, it’s also cause you used unsafe code. It’s just not officially enclosed in an “unsafe” block.

The only way to make Rust segfault is by performing unsafe operations.

Challange accepted. The following Rust code technically segfaults:

fn stackover(a : i64) -> i64 {
    return stackover(a);
}


fn main() {
    println!("{}", stackover(100));
}

A stack overflow is technically a segmentation violation. At least on linux the program recives the SIGSEGV signal. This compiles and I am no rust dev but this does not use unsafe code, right?

While the compiler shows a warning, the error message the program prints when run is not very helpfull IMHO:

thread 'main' has overflowed its stack
fatal runtime error: stack overflow
[1]    45211 IOT instruction (core dumped)  ../target/debug/rust

Edit: Even the compiler warning can be tricked by making it do recusion in pairs:

fn stackover_a(a : i64) -> i64 {
    return stackover_b(a);
}

fn stackover_b(a : i64) -> i64 {
    return stackover_a(a);
}

fn main() {
    println!("{}", stackover_a(100));
}

Looks like we still differ. If something is more complicated than what I may think, then there are some possibilities:

• I have not learned to language properly yet (this is where I stand with C++, so no matter how many times I've got segfaults, now is not the time for me to say language is bad)
• I have chosen the wrong tool (writing a videoplayer in assembler? something went way wrong here)
• tool is actually bad (my rant above goes here. in the sake of making some things easy and simple, something basic in the language got screwed up irrevocably)

And if I managed to try reading from a closed handle, or to access a memory that I am not actually allowed to use, or... (could not get more examples out of the top of my head), it is not the job of the language to slap my hands, as long as I follow the syntax. Most of the time (if not all the time) this means I have not accounted for something that my code allowed to happen - so my responsibility to deal with that

What I keep hearing about Rust is still in the lines of too-much-fucking-care (that's besides obviously dumb rule of "no more than one owner of a variable at any moment" which then had to be worked around because not everything can be done this way. please correct me if I am wrong here)