Granted I mostly work with high level programming languages so I may be missing something.
But that's not a perfectly valid argument, and it never was.
The whole thing exists because APIs that return a NULL value that "nobody checks", plus a string that you shouldn't use if you actually did check the null value.
In languages with sum types, this cannot happen.
Either you get your hash, or no result at all. You couldn't get eg NULL and *.
I can think of two common patterns that I've seen frequently:
* Return NULL for errors (sometimes with a global errorno() function).
* Return an integer error with any return values as out parameters.
So if it is possible to improve, why doesn't anyone do it?
Because in fact all the changes were about changing the function signatures. The function signature is enforced by the linker. The semantic of strings that go through isn't.
Returning 2 values is possible in C (via pointers input parameters). The main issue here is that libc is a strong API contract based on C function signatures, that nobody can change, only augment with new symbols. Such strong API compatibility constraints happen in any programming language, and workaround to fit new behaviours in old APIs happens everywhere.
But also, its not like there were many alternative languages when the POSIX standards were designed so it's fair that it works like this.
- sum/union types
- multiple return values/tuple types
- exceptions
means that most ways of returning an error from a function are not available in C. Because of this, many C APIs, including `crypt` in this case, resort to in-band error signalling by using a sentinel value (like NULL, a negative integer, "*" etc.).
Most other languages lack one or two of the above, but very few lack all three, and so most have developed a different culture around error reporting (Result in Rust, multiple return values in Go, exceptions in Java, Python etc.).
And really often when your "in-band error signalling" in Rust is more expensive you realise (perhaps to your horror) that your C wouldn't be correct, so you just dodged a bullet. For example Option<OwnedFd> is, like OwnedFd, a 32-bit value, Unix has always reserved -1 to mean invalid, so Rust can treat that as a niche. But the Windows equivalent Option<OwnedHandle> can't do this because, well, cue Raymond Chen: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040302-00/?p=40...
And it's very evident why the difference matters. People gravitate to what's readily available and ergonomic. That's why every C API under the sun (most definitely including libc itself) does janky stuff like returning -1 or "*" on error instead of building their own bespoke Result-style abstraction. A programming language is not just the things that are in some way possible within it, but more importantly the things that are easy in it.
struct Input<'a>(&'a [u8]);
impl<'a> Input<'a> {
fn new(input: &'a [u8]) -> Result<Self, Error> {
if input.len() >= 256 {
return Err(Errro...);
}
Ok(Self(input))
}
}
While not mandatory, a person would probably use it instead of the * hack.
Simply because the calling side wouldn't have an option to forget the check like with the NULL case
- result.unwrap() will panic if it failed
- result.ok() throws away the error but gives you a None value instead (still can’t use it as if it’s a success)
- matching on the Ok variant and doing nothing on the Err variant, you only get to use the success value inside the Ok arm
Etc etc.
The problem is when the compiler says “NULL is a valid instance of T”, which go lets you do, and rust doesn’t (without using the unsafe keyword and intentionally casting a null pointer, which you don’t do by accident.) Go lets you write code like `var hash string; hash, _ = hashfn()` and it compiles and now you have null instead of a valid hash.
This by the way is Tony Hoare's famous "Billion Dollar Mistake"