you can say that without a spec as well but what does “wrong” mean then? It just means you personally disagree with its behavior.
Nope. Specs can have bugs. Here are the bugs in the C++ spec for example:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_toc.html
As I said, specifications are useful and desirable, but the SIL's dogmatic "no spec = unsafe" is clearly not based in reality.
It's not because we have tested this program extensively on every C++ compiler, but because the language rules of C++ say so.
Debatable. Saying things in a prose specification doesn't magically make them happen. Tests and reference models can though.
I also don't really agree with the SIL requirements that languages need to have rigorous specifications to be safe. Clearly it's better if they do, but would your rather fly on a rocket controlled by C code or Rust code?
IMO a specification would be really nice to have, but it main purpose is to tick a certification checkbox, which is why the only one that exists was written specifically for that purpose.
I think there are some crates that wrap the unsafe code for you, e.g. https://github.com/rodrimati1992/abi_stable_crates/ (I haven't ever tried it).
He is. By using statically linked binaries.
Technically this is conflating two things: bundling dependencies and static/dynamic linking. But since you have to bundle your dependencies to use static linking, and there's little point dynamic linking if you bundle your dependencies... most of the time they are synonymous.
Exceptions are things like plugins, but that's pretty rare.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. It literally starts with the word OPINION in bold red caps.
asking the maintainers to lock down APIs which the C devs purposefully leave malleable, in part, to avoid binary blob drivers being feasible.
No, they were asking them to define the semantics of the filesystem APIs. Those semantics are not encoded in the C API but the Rust devs wanted to encode them in the Rust API to avoid making mistakes.
The C devs didn't want to, not because of concerns about binary drivers, but because the semantics are already broken. Apparently different filesystem drivers assume different semantics for the same functions and it's a whole mess. They don't want to face up to this and certainly don't want anyone pointing it out, so clearly it must be the Rust devs' fault for wanting APIs to have consistent semantics.
The rest of your comment is nonsense.
PDF writing isn't too bad IMO, since you don't need to understand the whole spec. I've written a PDF writer for maps from scratch and it was fairly easy and not too much code.
PDF reading though... Yeah I'm happy to leave that to people with more time and use their libraries.
A modern format would be nice, but I don't think it would be anywhere near nice enough to give up how universal PDF is.
Eh, it practice it works extremely well. I can't remember a single instance where a PDF document rendered incorrectly.
The format is very old so it's not surprising it has picked up a few WTFs. I'm happy to keep those hidden below the abstraction.
Totally depends what you end up working on as a programmer. If it's web apps, you'll be totally fine. All you need is basic arithmetic. Writing a game engine? You'll need to know some basic to moderate matrix maths...
If you're doing formal verification using unbounded model checking... good fucking luck.
On average I would say most programming tasks need very little maths. If you can add and multiply you'll be fine. Definitely sounds like you'll be ok.
Nice work. Aren't wasm proc macros already prototyped in Watt though?
Why do you say it needs more time in the oven? I've had zero issues with it as a drop-in replacement for Pip in a large commercial project, which is an extremely impressive achievement. (And it was 10x faster.)
I tried Poetry once and it failed to resolve dependencies on the first thing I tried it on. If anything Poetry needs more time in the oven. It also wasn't 10x faster.
That's just playing with semantics. They are clearly bugs. They are literally called "defect reports".
There are many aspects to safety and it's definitely a good idea to have a spec for a language, but it doesn't automatically mean safety is impossible without it.
The nice thing about abstraction is that you can talk about software without considering the hardware, more or less. If one says "this software is safe", it means it's safe assuming it's running on working hardware.
It doesn't always hold up - sometimes the abstraction leaks, e.g. for things like spectre and rowhammer. And there are sometimes performance concerns. But it's pretty good.