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.
-
This would be fine if the kind of problem you are describing was responsible for a significant percentage of our bug load. But it isn't.
In general this kind of rhetoric you are giving me, I feel, is driven by theoretical ideas, rather than a data-driven approach to how do we minimize software bugs. Which is fine, but then I wish Rust people would admit that, rather than claiming they are addressing correctness.
-
-
Hmm. But how do you minimize bugs? Have you seen the stdlib? There are data structures there that you don't ever see in C++ because they're so hard to debug.
-
None of this is data driven. If the priority is to minimize bugs, you have to: (1) Take some set of projects in the domain you care about (2) Look at what the bugs were, and how much time it took to address them (3) Classify those bugs into various categories in terms of how
-
they might be approached (4) Rank each category by priority (5) Propose methods for dealing with each category (6) Accurately assess the degree to which each method will really alleviate each bug type (7) Accurately assess the increased costs due to adopting these methods, and
-
correctly consider whether those costs outweigh the proposed benefit (8) Formulate some metrics that let you measure (6) and (7) in reality, and compare to your pre-estimates (9) Use 5-8 on some new set of complex projects, seeing how they worked over those projects' lifetimes.
-
(10) goto 1
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.