lad

Are we still talking about COBOL?

To be fair, I disagree with all the points author makes, except for performance which is important but may be less important than code clarity in different cases. I am surprised that exceptions perform that well, and I am surprised the author said that compared C++ exceptions to Rust results, but actually did the right thing and compared C++ exceptions with C++ expected first. I thought it was going to be one of those “let’s compare assembly to lisp”

Yeah, I shaped my words poorly. What I meant is that errors are sort of equivalent to exceptions, but errors are first class citizens of type system, and this is an improvement over exceptions being kind of independent of type

Have you ever worked at large old corporation? Wasting money is a bit of an underestimation on that scale.

Also, not all banks use COBOL, but the ones that don’t are usually much younger.

Besides, Ada would’ve been a better example, as it is used by telecoms and seems to be held in high regard, unlike COBOL. The only issue with Ada I heard of is that it’s on par with C++ in complexity which is far from being simple.

I’m just going to ask, without making assumptions. Have you managed to cut some time to read the article and find an answer?

you never know what code your function or library calls that can produce an exception

As far as I remember, there were several attempts at introducing exceptions into type system, and all have failed to a various degree. C++ abandoned the idea completely, Java has a half-assed exception signature where you can always throw an unexpected exception if it’s runtime exception, mist likely there were other cases, too.

So yeah, exception as part of explicit function signature is a vast improvement, I completely agree

I feel like this will have zero protection against

if (result.isSuccess()) {
    handle_error(result.error);
} else {
    do_something(result.value);
}

Besides, this is exactly what the comment said about having to constantly check for return values at call site. I think this may be mitigated by some clever macro-magic, but that will become a mess fast.

I don’t know the answer to your question, but I think that what is needed is just a bit of syntactic sugar, e.g. Rust has ? for returning compatible errors without looking into them. That seems to be powered by Try trait, that may be a monad, but I am not fluent enough to check if it formally is.

Big names probably plan ahead and may have switched the projects that were not too deep into development or haven’t started yet. But it’s likely something to not be loudly announced

It’s used because the ones who use it have enough money to pay for any problems that may arise from it’s use, and known problems are deemed better than unknown ones.

It is a viable model when you have enough money and resources, but a conservative one

it’s one of the most popular languages used for C/C++ build scripting

Unfortunately 😅

That way we’ll just find maintainers went near extinct over time, just like COBOL developers that are as rare as they are expensive. Only Linux kernel isn’t a bank, and maybe will not have as much money to pay to rare developers capable of maintaining C codebase

Well, as they say, “common sense is not very common”, but thinking a bit before rushing in may always do good.

It’s the number of the signal sent, 9 is for SIGKILL. You can send various signals with kill, and depending on how application was made it may react on all signals with dying, or meaningfully process most of them. Afaik, SIGKILL can’t be processed by the app, and it always means just that: “die already”.

Checked in Wikipedia, that’s about right but there are more details I left out, mostly because didn’t know about them, too: POSIX signals

Augenmass? Keeping distance or something?

No, it’s when someone wanted to change docs to say “they” when referring to the user. I don’t think it was really necessary, but refusal to do that looks like a statement I don’t like.

juː ʃʊd juːz ˌɪntəˈnæʃᵊnᵊl fəʊˈnɛtɪk ˈælfəbɛt fɔː prəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃᵊn ðɛn

The hard part is “that add value”. Not only it’s hard to measure, but highly depends on scope of what is done

I find inability to record/screenshot (both audio and pictures) the most annoying. They actively broke call recording because “what if it’s illegal”, then published their own call recorder, but only in India, or something like that.

If I have something on screen I always can take a picture with another camera, creating obstacles doesn’t add privacy, it only serves to deter the laziest of bad actors and actual fair users

For instance, social media apps and shopping apps will know if you took interest in something, not just guess based on time you observed the screen. Besides, they will think you liked something even if the reason was not that