The point of the joke is not that the Python interpreter will change types mid-program on its own, but that you don’t have any real way of knowing if you’re going to get the type you expect.

Programs are messy and complicated, and data might flow through many different systems before finally being used for output. It can and often does happen that one of those systems does not behave as expected, and you get bugs where one type is expected but another is used in actuality.

Yes, most likely what would happen in Python is a TypeError, not actual output, but it was pretty clearly minor hyperbole for the sake of the joke.

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

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));
}

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.

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)

Almost the same as me. All kinds of programming jobs. I usually end up working in Python or C, for embedded systems work.

Of course, if you’re talking hobby, it could be anything.

You’re right. It’s a stop gap, but when you’re talking about a code base that has been maintained for 20 years plus you can’t really sell re-implementation.

Most recently it was with an older version of C++ using shared pointers.

It’s pleasure for me to write in rust, I really like how fast I can deploy a working solution (including debug time). As I mentioned, there are situations when, for some reason, you cannot do without C++. But you are right cpp-analyzers do not solve all possible problems.

That’s a rather old joke. Modern compilers print more adequate things on STL/templates related things.

And it doesn’t make Rust any better.

I watched it when I was 30 as a method of learning English. It wasn’t too childish.

I had a OoM with 16 GB and a Quad-Core while linking yesterday.

That goes against like a century of convention. At least in western comics.