this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
18 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

26761 readers
220 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

Lots of talk about the problems of implicit conversions. Which is known, and is the reason that rust does not have implicit conversions. But when it came to the heart of the article, the explanation of why unsigned is bad for sizes, it's just:

  • One example about wrapping in ring buffers.
  • Saying "in the 90s there were a lot of problems".
  • The lower boundary "0" being near "normal" numbers.

I can see how you can think the 3rd one is an issue. But then the answer should be the java one of just removing unsigned. Since that issue is not exclusive to sizes, every unsigned use case has it.

It seems like the real problem here is having implicit conversions.