3 ms·

In this case, safer == memory safety (which is not a Rust-specific thing), not general forms of correctness, and the comparison in the original comment is to C

• namelost 9y ago
  Unless it has been edited, the original comment doesn't say memory safety, it says "so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one". The reply to that comment then interprets safety as memory safety and compares to C and C++. This is kind of my point. Rust defines safety as memory safety, but unfortunately memory safety is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to safety. Logic errors are just as pernicious. Programmers have a natural bias towards solving problems with technical solutions, but for me, Rust's memory safety is achieved at the cost of a high productivity penalty and a moderate readability penalty. Both of these reduce my ability to understand and manually verify the code. Whereas languages that achieve memory safety via a GC, allow me to focus my mental energy on writing correct code, not on memory management.
  • metargz 9y ago
    > Whereas languages that achieve memory safety via a GC, allow me to focus my mental energy on writing correct code, not on memory management. Ownership type systems are supposed to rule out synchronization errors (say, data races), which is something you may want regardless of how memory is managed. Say, the research on ownership types that came out of MIT in early '00s worked with a subset of Java (see OOPSLA'02 "Ownership Types for Safe Programming: Preventing Data Races and Deadlocks").