It’s amazing how people will jump on any Rust bug to claim it’s unsafe and you might as well just use C++, but C++’s lifetime checker—which is broken by design—means that C++ is finally safe and we can stop worrying.
-
-
-
Replying to @strega_nil @pcwalton
It's also not broken by design. It's unsound. That's a very large distinction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @strega_nil
The point is that if you’re going to consider Rust broken due to soundness bugs, you also logically have to consider C++ broken due to not even trying to be sound.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
Not really - if I promise soundness, but I am unsound, then I have broken a promise. If I do not promise soundness, and I am unsound, then I have not broken any promises.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @pcwalton
Logically, you can't consider the intent of Rust when considering the "brokenness" of C++. Calling the C++ lifetime checker broken is deliberately misusing the word. Haskell is not broken because the type system is unsound, because Haskell does not promise a sound type system.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @strega_nil @pcwalton
unsoundness in the Rust checker is due to bugs. unsoundness in the C++ checker is by design.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Respectfully, I think that you care about whether language teams are “breaking promises” or not, but engineers who care about results instead of language partisanship don’t.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton
I actually don't care that Rust is unsound - I think it is very useful despite that. I care that you're being kind of an asshole about people's hard work. I would be just as annoyed about people calling Rust "broken".
0 replies 0 retweets 8 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.