sukhmel

I think, the idea was along the lines of "because C++ was not memory-safe, and it has to stay compatible with how it was, there are still a lot of ways to not write memory-safely"

This makes sense, there are memory-safely features available but there are a lot of programmers that will never willingly use that features, because the olden ways are surely better

Other than that, I agree, when you're paid to fix an unfixable problem you will probably claim something like that and advocate for your solution being the only one that solves this

That was about what I meant, but thanks for expressing this, sorry I was vague.

…but still edible. I usually alternate between eating kiwi whole and with a spoon ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You were supposed to not eat those? Well, I figured, I'm not obligated to eat everything if I want less spicy, but I never thought that those are decorative

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

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