Is there anything more specific to connect Red Bull and alt-right? I'm not exactly a fan of Red Bull, but I wonder if there's any real reason to avoid them
Edit: I see in another comment
Servus TV is a TV station based in Wals-Siezenheim in the Austrian state of Salzburg and owned by Red Bull Media House GmbH, a subsidiary of Red Bull GmbH ... It is politically aligned with the far right.
which is not a 100% convincing of what company as a whole is, but indeed is not good
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
I first thought you were talking about waving to pedestrians to cross when you stop to let them go. Which (edit: stopping and waiting) is a correct and expected behaviour, afaik