3 ms·
Highjack the term safety, use contrived examples, and slippery slope arguments all you want. You know exactly the advantage I'm talking about. It's fine, I get
by autoreleasepool 11y ago
Highjack the term safety, use contrived examples, and slippery slope arguments all you want. You know exactly the advantage I'm talking about.
It's fine, I get you're very invested in this. I'm gonna go back to making stuff. I like the work you guys are doing and I don't want to give the impression I do not.
- pcwalton 11y agoIt's not "hijacking" the term "safety"--it's having a precise definition of it. It's not a slippery slope to show both examples of unsafety and to show that this lack of safety leads to security problems in the real world. I understand I sound irritated here, but that's because we went through a lot of work to make Rust safe. It is irritating when people claim that languages that didn't even try to do any of that work somehow did it better than Rust did.
- autoreleasepool 11y agoRust is CLEARLY better at safety than C++. Stop seeking validation for that. Everyone who knows about Rust is convinced. I'm sorry it must be frustrating talking to someone emotionally disinterested about the whole thing. I've just been thinking about C++'s advantage in that particular instance from a software architecture point of view and you kind of failed to persuade me otherwise. That being said, Rust is definitely a language I will continue to study. I have no doubt it's making me a better programmer. EDIT: I find it funny that I'm always defending C++ here. C++ is like that kid at school who's not really your friend but you always get stuck doing project with. You end up spending a lot of time with him, so when the time comes that you hear someone talk bad about him you feel obligated to point out that he's a actually pretty alright dude.