3 ms·

> If you really need unsafe code, because raw pointers, or other reasons, C++ is safer than unsafe Rust. I don't agree. I've told you why. I find speaking with

> If you really need unsafe code, because raw pointers, or other reasons, C++ is safer than unsafe Rust. I don't agree. I've told you why. I find speaking with you very frustrating, and it's not clear to me that you've actually understood my point unfortunately. :-/ > If a library wants to do that, it probably means that safe language is too slow That doesn't make any sense.

Const-me 9y ago
> I find speaking with you very frustrating Yeah, same here. You’re insinuating things I didn’t said nor meant. > it's not clear to me that you've actually understood my point I disagree with your points, and I've told you why.