4 ms·
I don't believe in safety and zero costs. These are mere catchy memes. I could only repeat my question: How Common Lisp or even more pragmatic Golang are less
by dschiptsov 10y ago
I don't believe in safety and zero costs. These are mere catchy memes.
I could only repeat my question: How Common Lisp or even more pragmatic Golang are less safe? I am not asking about Haskell or Erlang.)
Compile time error for trying to use an old binding/reference? Is this memory safety?
- pcwalton 10y agoGo is less safe due to the "Off to the Races" problem, but there's a legitimate debate as to whether that safety loss matters in practice. Common Lisp and Golang use GC, which exacts a performance cost in some scenarios. Go also has highly dynamic semantics (e.g. with defer) which have unavoidable performance overhead, especially in an AOT compilation setting.
- nercury 10y agoThe engineering decisions are not based on beliefs. They are usually trade-offs. Safety in Rust has a very specific meaning clearly outlined in the official book. There are users who prefer it for certain tasks. The answer to your last question is also in the book.
- dschiptsov 10y agoWhy not state it here in a few simple sentences, like for a 5 year old? Clarity is usually an evidence for deep understanding. I hope I will be able to get it.
- pcwalton 10y agoMemory safety without garbage collection. (While still supporting dynamic allocation.)