It’s really easy to criticize Rust for being too “strict”. It’s a lot harder to say what specific changes you’d make to make it less strict during development, while still allowing safety during deployment.
-
-
Memory safety with no GC (while still allowing dynamic allocation) is really hard. I’m skeptical it’s possible to do much better than Rust. Only alternative I’ve seen is trying to tame use-after-free; e.g. memory tagging schemes. With careful PL design it *might* be safe enough.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
& at a meta-level yo your point, it’s much easier to criticize Rust for X than it is to produce a viable alternative better with respect to X
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There are plenty of examples out there where additional checks exist and are optional. They end up forever disabled. In other words, software is never "done".
Thanks. 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.