> Just seems like you want to be bombastic for the sake of being bombastic.
Ironically, that's exactly how you seem when just drop the "Turing completeness" bomb on a discussion about error handling. It's very hard not to see it as a ridiculously childish tantrum, since not only there's no actual argument, it is by definition impossible for it to be relevant to the discussion.
Anyway, I would not be writing this if it wasn't because you keep pumping direct personal attacks to everyone who dares counter your posts, which are already in a terrible tone.
Thanks for the free lesson, Random Internet Stranger. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, the cognitive dissonance you give me is just too much to bare. Your wisdom is clearly beyond reproach, and so therefore Rust cannot be a systems language since it has panics. Yet, I and many others use Rust for systems programming. My brain might explode from the contradiction!
> therefore Rust cannot be a systems language since it has panics
Or, the obvious alternative that I was trying to point out: your analysis is wrong, and therefore, assuming the language is not useless, there must be a proper alternative to "panics everywhere" * that you are not accounting for !
* This is just to explicitly write the phrase again before it is (again) twisted as calling for a strict prohibition of all non-terminating conditions or some other childish nonsense.
Even unwinding panics (which are exceptions in all but name) can be an alternative, and Rust does support them.
Cool, good thing I didn't say to panic everywhere.
That lkml post has zero relevance here. He's asking for fallible allocations. Which is totally reasonable.
Serious question: did you read the entire blog? If so, can you specifically point out passages you disagree with and why?
EDIT: And seriously, I started out this conversation with a serious comment asking you to elaborate on what you meant by asking something very concrete: how would you change the code example in my blog to conform to your view? You decided to flippantly respond with a non-answer in the first place. Why not go back to the original question I asked and give a real answer? If you don't know Rust, then use pseudo code. We're talking about a dozen lines here. It shouldn't take long.
Ironically, that's exactly how you seem when just drop the "Turing completeness" bomb on a discussion about error handling. It's very hard not to see it as a ridiculously childish tantrum, since not only there's no actual argument, it is by definition impossible for it to be relevant to the discussion.
Anyway, I would not be writing this if it wasn't because you keep pumping direct personal attacks to everyone who dares counter your posts, which are already in a terrible tone.