12 ms·
The claims of safety and versatility are not in opposition. There are cases where the compiler can't prove what you're doing is safe, so take the guards off and
by eropple 9y ago
The claims of safety and versatility are not in opposition. There are cases where the compiler can't prove what you're doing is safe, so take the guards off and do it yourself. In the 99% case (I've literally never written unsafe Rust), you leverage its tooling to better communicate intent and safety.
Clinging to an exceptional case and pretending it's the rule doesn't hold in practice.
- dmitrygr 9y agoThe OP i was arguing against said if something is hard to do in Rust it's probably an anti-pattern with respect to memory performance or safety. To counter a statement of the form "nothing of type X is good", only a single example is needed. I provided it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> To counter a statement of the form "nothing of type X is good", only a single example is needed. “If something is hard in Rust, it is probably an anti-pattern” (emphasis added) is not equivalent to a statement of the form “nothing of type X is good”. It is equivalent to the form “most things of type X are not good”, which cannot be rebutted by a single example.