3 ms·
Firstly, the frontpage isn't promoting the misunderstandings in Steve's comment, it's promoting a different (uncommon) misunderstanding. As I mentioned in http
by Manishearth 10y ago
Firstly, the frontpage isn't promoting the misunderstandings in Steve's comment, it's promoting a different (uncommon) misunderstanding.
As I mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13377957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13377957, in the world of programming languages, the term "memory safety" means something specific.
D calls itself safe on its website, but it too has the ability to escape-hatch into C/C++.
Language websites putting forth subjective claims or claims based on definitions which may be subjective is totally normal:
Go says that it "makes it easy to build simple, reliable, and efficient software", which is totally subjective.
Ruby says "It has an elegant syntax that is natural to read and easy to write.", also subjective.
Python says "lets you work quickly and integrate systems more effectively", also subjective.
- p0nce 10y agoI get what you are saying. What strikes me as different in the other frontpages are: the claims are made in terms vague enough to be unassailable.
- tatterdemalion 10y agoYou seem to be saying that because Rust is able to provide stronger guarantees, it should make weaker claims on its main page. But just because some of Rust's benefits are verifiable, unlike those of some other languages, doesn't mean the constraints on them need to be enumerated every time they're expressed. This is not "lying." By the same token, you should be requiring that every subjective statement on the other langs' pages have the caveat "in the opinion of the $LANG developers." Obviously no one would wear that.
- Manishearth 10y ago"thread safety" and "memory safety" are vague terms. "thread safety" is clarified there. "memory safety" has a particular meaning in that context which is true for Rust.