Unpopular opinion: What it means for a language to “have a spec” is so ambiguous as to be meaningless in practice.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @pcwalton
Spoken like someone that works on a language without a spec.
1 reply 3 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @migueldeicaza
Rename the Rust reference to the Rust “specification” and you have something basically equivalent to the Go specification.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @migueldeicaza
Galaxy brain: rename the Rust compiler source to the Rust spec
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @jckarter @migueldeicaza
I know you kid, but honestly using Miri as a starting point for a Rust spec wouldn’t be a bad idea when it comes to specifying the precise invariants around unsafe code
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
also rust’s enormous test suite is a pretty legit conformance checker (i know some have used its wild constructs to check parser impls)
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
also more seriously patrick you may seriously be overestimating how complete the reference is (or go’s spec is really rough and fails to mention tons of parts of the language)
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I wouldn’t be surprised if the go spec was just one sentence “this language is so Simple and Obvious that all correct behavior should compose obviously from the simple primitives”
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
There are major parts of the Go language, such as the fact that unused imports and variables are an error, that are unspecified. That’s supposedly deliberate because it’s a detail of the compiler (?!)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.