Hacker News Reader

Comment by heinrich5991 | Hacker News Reader

It has a feel of a scripting language, but as far as I can tell, it rather has the safety of C/C++, which I personally wouldn't call "safe like any other language".

View on HN

Why not? I'm interested to know because in my opinion I don't see it any less safe than languages that don't have automatic memory management and/or languages like Rust.

Because it is flatly untrue? Memory safety is rather a binary thing. C# without /unsafe is safe. Same for Java and Rust. Not true for Nim or C/C++. Rust is unique in doing this without any GC or other runtime overhead, AFAIK, which makes it a bit special.

Do you have any specific examples of these unsafetiness in Nim?

Pointers?

Uhh that's not much of an answer...

I haven't done anything in Nim, but in C it's really easy to do bad things with pointers. You can deref a NULL, you can be sloppy about arithmetic, you can overflow a buffer, etc. Nim seems to emphasize using other features instead of pointers, but it still has them.

As stated before, there are ways to avoid them and ways that Nim will soon handle them, but do you know how many other languages deref a NULL pointer? Unlike C, this does not result in undefined behavior in means that it will execute something unsafe in Nim

Sorry for my ignorance, but the languages other than C that I've used are javascript, python, various lisps, bash, sql, prolog, etc.: no pointers! I'm interested to learn how pointers might be made safe, in Nim or anywhere else?

It really depends on how you define "safe". Nim will allow you to deref null pointers (unless you annotate it with `not nil`, then it can never be nil, this results in compile errors if it is) but if they are, it will be like Java and throw an exception if --nilChecks:On. The only language I know that makes pointers safe is Rust, with it's borrow checker and such, but that's a tradeoff I don't really want and the options Nim provides are better for my case.

Ada, SPARK, ParaSail

It is undefined behavior in Nim due to compiling to C. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9050999

As stated before in this thread, there _will_ be nil Checks in the future which will result in NilErrors or you can just annotate it with `not nil` right now and it will never be nil. You can also use -fsanitize flags with the clang backend to trap the null dereferences.

"Unlike C, this does not result in undefined behavior "

Of course it does. If you turn off expensive runtime checks, you'll get SIGSEGVs. That doesn't happen in Rust, because it is semantically impossible to dereference NULL.

Since when were we comparing Nim and Rust? yes Rust is more safe than Nim, but that comes with tradeoffs. You are obviously not reading the whole thread about me bringing up (multiple times) the fact that you can avoid these and will be even easier to avoid in the future.

Nim does not have a separate unsafe keyword, because all unsafe features are already characterized by keywords; that's a result of its Pascal heritage. To check whether a piece of Nim code is safe, you check for the presence or absence of these keywords; e.g., you can grep for "ptr" in Nim, while grepping for "*" in C# isn't particularly helpful. Every unsafe feature in Nim has an associated keyword/pragma. Having a special "unsafe" keyword that says, essentially, "this procedure can contain other unsafe keywords" is sort of superfluous.

Note: these unsafe features have two purposes. One is to interface with C/C++ code. The other is to be able to write close-to-the-metal code in Nim rather than in C (where you wouldn't gain any safety by using C, but lose the expressiveness of Nim). This is, for example, how Nim's GC is itself written in Nim.

None of the unsafe features are necessary for high-level programming, i.e. unless you actually want to operate that close to the metal.

There's undefined behaviour in the "main" language, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9050999

That's a bit misleading and mostly due to the fact that (1) Nim hasn't reached 1.0 yet and (2) in practice these issues are relatively uncommon for the C code that Nim generates, so this hasn't been a particularly high priority.

First of all, Nim's backend does not target the C standard; it targets a number of "approved" C compilers, which makes it (1) a bit easier to avoid undefined behavior, because these C compilers know that they may be used as backends by high-level languages and provide efficient means to disable some of the undefined behavior and (2) allows Nim to emit optimizations specifically for them. For example, Nim knows that gcc understands case ranges in its switch statement and can optimize for that. See compiler/extccomp.nim for some more examples. Nim also makes some additional assumptions about how data is represented that are not defined in the C standard, but are true for all target architectures (or can be made true with the appropriate compiler configurations).

Second, regarding the specific cases of undefined behavior:

1. That shift widths aren't subject to overflow checks is an oversight; most shifts are by a constant factor, anyway, so they can be checked at compile time with no additional overhead. Nim does not do signed shifts (unless you escape to C), so they are not an issue.

2. Integer overflow is actually checked, but expensive; there's an existing pull request for the compiler to generate code that leverages the existing clang/gcc builtins to avoid the overhead, but that hasn't been merged yet; -fno-strict-overflow/-ftrapv/-fwrapv can also be used for clang/gcc to suppress the undefined behavior (depending on what you want) and one of them may be enabled by default in the absence of checks.

3. Nils are not currently being checked, but they will be. There's already a nilcheck pragma, but that isn't fully implemented and also not available through a command line option. This will be fixed. Until then, you can use gcc (where -O2 implies -fisolate-erroneous-paths-dereference) or use --passC:-fsanitize=null for clang to fix the issue.

Presumably there are plans to disallow accidental sending of thread-local GC'd pointers to other threads as well?

See: http://nim-lang.org/docs/manual.html#threads-gc-safety

(work in progress)

"Why not?"

Because it isn't true.

"in my opinion I don't see it any less safe than languages that don't have automatic memory management"

Strawman ... the comment was about scripting languages.

"and/or languages like Rust"

Then it would be unwise to pay any attention to your opinion.

> Because it isn't true

Did you not see the other person who just said that?

> Strawman ... the comment was about scripting languages.

I do not have a clue what you are trying to say...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com