3 ms·

Show me a programming language that lets you manipulate raw pointers while providing the same safety guarantees as safe Rust code (i.e. have your cake and eat i

Show me a programming language that lets you manipulate raw pointers while providing the same safety guarantees as safe Rust code (i.e. have your cake and eat it too) and I'll accept this as a valid criticism of Rust. Until then, I"m going to keep thinking that Rust provides a reasonable, practical compromise. For about a year, I've been regularly using Rust to write real software that I actually use, and I've never had to write unsafe code. I'm trusting other people to do it, which is never not the case, no matter what programming language I'm using.

jackyinger 10y ago
By definition manipulation of raw pointers is unsafe. So no language can do that. Sure Rust's typed pointers can be safe as long as libraries fulfill their garuntees. My main point is that safety rests upon the library correctness. And I can see the value of the interlocks this provides. However it is not infallible as the word safe suggests. I'll admit that I have not grokked rust, but I did give it a reasonable try. Perhaps all my C hacking has ruined me. :)
- caconym_ 10y ago
  > My main point is that safety rests upon the library correctness. And I can see the value of the interlocks this provides. However it is not infallible as the word safe suggests. I don't disagree with that. Sometimes I don't totally love how the Rust people market the language, and I can see how the statements they make about safety could rub their target audience the wrong way, but I don't know how I'd do it better. I really do think the language does a great job helping programmers write fast, safe, bug-free code... once they get over the learning curve. If you ever feel like taking another crack at it, this is the reference that made the memory model stuff (which is the trickiest bit IMO) click for me: http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/too-many-lists/book/ http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/too-many-lists/book/

jackyinger 10y ago

By definition manipulation of raw pointers is unsafe. So no language can do that. Sure Rust's typed pointers can be safe as long as libraries fulfill their garuntees. My main point is that safety rests upon the library correctness. And I can see the value of the interlocks this provides. However it is not infallible as the word safe suggests. I'll admit that I have not grokked rust, but I did give it a reasonable try. Perhaps all my C hacking has ruined me. :)

caconym_ 10y ago
> My main point is that safety rests upon the library correctness. And I can see the value of the interlocks this provides. However it is not infallible as the word safe suggests. I don't disagree with that. Sometimes I don't totally love how the Rust people market the language, and I can see how the statements they make about safety could rub their target audience the wrong way, but I don't know how I'd do it better. I really do think the language does a great job helping programmers write fast, safe, bug-free code... once they get over the learning curve. If you ever feel like taking another crack at it, this is the reference that made the memory model stuff (which is the trickiest bit IMO) click for me: http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/too-many-lists/book/ http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/too-many-lists/book/