Jai's main objective is not the speed of compilation. From what you've mentioned, only optimization seems to be the main reason for slow compilation. Maybe, @Jonathan_Blow would be able to comment on the above himself?
-
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.
And "avoiding UB" is not really helpful if avoiding means trading it off for things that are technically not UB, but are still bugs.
-
-
That sounds scary, but where does that happen? I can't think of an example atm.
-
I think this is a good example of what Jon is talking about:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1K66dMhWk …
-
I got into a big discussion on Twitter after this with a relatively prominent member of the Rust community (since deleted since my tweets auto-delete) and he basically said, yeah, it is about memory safety, not about correctness per se. I forget who it was.
-
Hmm. That makes sense. Maybe what they're trying to say is that Rust is a stepping stone for a future where memory safety is solved and we can focus on other correctness issues that are currently even harder since we have to also deal with memory unsafety.
-
And by stepping stone, I mean for a better language to be invented after the next 10-20 years
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.