4 ms·
you present a good argument for ticking all the safety boxes, but the original comment you're citing doesn't specify safety; you're refuting an argument they di
by riwsky 9y ago
you present a good argument for ticking all the safety boxes, but the original comment you're citing doesn't specify safety; you're refuting an argument they didn't make. To count Go as an example, one could count "zero-cost abstractions" or "no runtime" as a box that Go doesn't check.
- naasking 9y agoRust's "boxes" are there for safety reasons. I don't see what else could have possibly been meant. And Go has a runtime. The fact that it has green threads and runs a GC makes for a heavier runtime than C or Rust. I'm not sure I get your argument about Go' boxes. The original post was clearly talking about the "extra" work a developer has to do to "satisfy" the compiler and run their code. It's a common complaint from those coming from less safe languages. I don't see how I could interpret the meaning as you suggested and still make sense of the post.