> let's not act like there is no choice in C If you are using gcc or clang, you have more options. True. But not all C compilers give you those options. Howeve

> let's not act like there is no choice in C If you are using gcc or clang, you have more options. True. But not all C compilers give you those options. However, the point is moot, since I never said you can't catch these things in C; I said it wasn't the default. Which you agree with. > I never said that compile time checks of variables are possible, but rather we could move to using dependent typing You didn't say anything about dependent typing. You said "Rust is no better than C". And I'm pointing out that it is. Dependent typing may be even better in some cases; I'm not arguing otherwise. > Saying you can catch the panic is missing the point of unintentional OOB accesses, which is that they're unintentional. No one said you should catch the panic. You can use Vec::get() for example if you are using runtime-derived indices and want bounds checking in an ergonomic fashion. And saying a panic for unintentional OOB is the same as in C is not true, since you get a panic by default in Rust, and to get one in C, not only must you be using a specific compiler or two, you must have the sanitizers enabled for every source file in your program. Not "by default" by any stretch. > C is just as safe with regard to OOB accessing, and to be honest that's pretty poor in 2017. It is nowhere close, and saying it is is pretty poor in 2017 as well. And you are still ignoring pointers, references, lifetimes, threads, ... you know, the other things that also help Rust make "Safe by default" and C "dangerous by default".