upvote

points

by kibwen1 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby bcjdjsndon1 hours ago|
[-]
> without counting `unsafe`,

Well, if you exclude all the bad code people have wrote, c is a safe language... See the point I'm making here?

If coders couldn't be trusted multiple times in the past, and we had to invent language level features to correct them, but they still continued to make either the same, or a new, mistakes.... Why is rust any different?

I guarantee you we will be complaining about unsafe rust in the future because rust doesnt really bring anything new to the table other than trivial cases that were easy to code in the first place. Rust brings you nothing a c coder couldn't already do in c.... They haven't solved the enduring problems of computer science, they have simply kicked the can down the road

reply
upvoteby kibwen5 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Well, if you exclude all the bad code people have wrote

Nobody is doing this. Please read my comment again.

reply
upvoteby reorder969518 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The difference I see there is any line in a C codebase could have these issues, whereas in Rust they're specifically marked as unsafe sections, with the language having a clear list of invariants it expects the programmer to uphold in an unsafe block. Additionally Rust has a culture of developers specifically justifying the unsafe block and why it's correct in comments. It's a massive reduction of the scope of the code that needs audited, that doesn't mean there can't be mistakes in it, just that it's easier to verify certain properties of the whole codebase.
reply