Jonathan Blow

I think that correctness is definitely a priority. Have you seen Ralf Jung's working group research of the `unsafe` uses within the stdlib and the compiler? Unless we're talking about a different form of correctness. I'm mostly talking about avoiding UB and vulnerabilities.

Then I think you are using the word "correctness" too loosely and charitably (as I think the entire Rust community does). Avoiding UB and vulnerabilities is good, but correctness means the program doesn't have bugs.

Ah yes, you're using a stricter form of correctness. Let's picture the space of bugs that will probably appear in a program. To me (loose correctness), ensuring correctness is proving that there's a region in that space that you'll never visit. Perfect correctness (yours) is (1/2

great, but afaik is only provable using very much cutting edge technology like Agda, Coq or Idris. Without at least fully dependent types you aren't able to prove that your program has absolutely no bugs. Maybe in 20 years or so that tech will be ergonomic enough for daily use :)

I am not talking about absolutely no bugs. I am just saying, an approach that is about general correctness, would look very different from an approach that is about memory safety + resource ownership.

It's fine, I think it's good that Rust is researching how to do a good job with memory safety + resource ownership without being a managed language. I just wish they would be clearer about what they are doing, and over-promise less.

How are they over-promising? (Honest question, I'd like to know your POV)

It's just distorted rhetoric. Almost none of the bugs we see are memory safety problems or resource deallocation problems. So the amount by which Rust would reduce our bug load is pretty small. So I don't think it can claim that it addresses correctness.