4 ms·
Because it's HN and there is a segment of the population here who feel compelled to promote the New Shiny any chance they get, irrespective of how terrible it l
by sidlls 10y ago
Because it's HN and there is a segment of the population here who feel compelled to promote the New Shiny any chance they get, irrespective of how terrible it looks, or how badly it squanders their credibility.
In this case, for example, the underlying issue (as usual) isn't "C language BAD!" it's that the function call isn't thread-safe. Which can happen in any language, including Rust.
- PhaseLockk 10y agoI'm not an expert, but I thought safe rust had guaranteed thread safety? https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/concurrency.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/concurrency.html
- sidlls 10y ago"Thread safety" is more than just protection against data races, which (AFAIK--I am quite happy to acknowledge being wrong here) is the guarantee Rust makes.
- steveklabnik 10y agoPart of the issue with that slogan is that "thread safety" doesn't have any specific definition. Yes, we're specifically talking about data races, as well as the general Send/Sync bounds, but for a blurb on the home page, "thread safety" is the best thing we could come up with. Pitches need to be succinct and get the idea across, but due to the succinctness, can't capture 100% of the details.
- sidlls 10y agoNo doubt, and I wasn't intending to ding the docs. Rust docs are a paradigm to be emulated in almost every case in my opinion.
- steveklabnik 10y agoNone taken! This issue has come up on HN before, just trying to clarify and support what you were saying.