4 ms·

> The higher the freedom, the better the results delivered by a sensible/knowledgeable person. Experience has shown this hypothesis to be false, especially con

• aisofteng 9y ago
  Neither of you has said explicitly what you mean by "better" and likely have different measures in mind when saying it here.
• sifoo 9y ago
  Until we have as much code written in Rust as is currently implemented in C, experience hasn't shown anything. The same claims and promises have been made for C++ in relation to vanilla C for ages, and it's just not true. An experienced C coder (which arguably takes longer to achieve) will perform as good as a C++ coder of equal skill level. All they do is trade complexity and convenience for simplicity and flexibility; it's a matter of preference, not life and death.
  • Jweb_Guru 9y ago
    This working group literally just proved that a significant subset of Rust is safer than any comparable subset of C++. This isn't a matter of opinion. What more proof do you actually want than a formal proof? I seriously wonder what people think the whole point of this paper was.
    • sifoo 9y ago
      Empirical? It's the only kind that really matters in the end. Any idiot can see that Rust is safer in theory, but reality is where the action is. I'm guessing unsafe doesn't constitute a significant subset then, since it's worse than C++. And that's the point, Rust is not going to threaten C or C++ without plenty of unsafe code being written in Rust.