Overall a thing that is going to be a problem for me with Rust is
A thing I want: A language with linear types
What Rust is: A language which type-enforces only a single mutable pointer to any buffer, internally using a linear typing engine
A thing I don't want: That
Conversation
Also F* requires you to write code in a restricted subset of the language (Low*) if you want 1 😟 - it's nice that Rust lets you have a highish level of language that automates a bunch of this lowering you'd otherwise need to do by hand.
Would be interested to know how far Cogent got with this stuff 🤔
would you agree that it's hard to do much better than Rust without some kind of global analysis?
like there is a fundamental limit to how much you can handle with just local reasoning, right?
e.g. I had some ideas for Cell::with_mut that require global callgraph checks to work
1
1
I'm not sure… probably? I think it would be neat if a language let you do more with separation logic directly, but that would probably require more work from the programmer, with less of the automation the Rust's type system provides.
1
4
Show replies


