3 ms·
I don't see how the article is trying to be "comforting," or dismissing the value of skill and education. I also don't see how the `Send` trait featured in the
by Rusky 8y ago
I don't see how the article is trying to be "comforting," or dismissing the value of skill and education. I also don't see how the `Send` trait featured in the article "doesn't give any freedom for creativity."
I read it as claiming that skill and education are insufficient to prevent these bugs, and that automation is still valuable no matter how skilled the programmer is.
- _bxg1 8y agoIn a broad sense, the forces of safety and flexibility in a language tend to be at odds. Rust does a lot of clever things that push that curve some, but a big part of what makes it safer than C++ is what you can't do.
- Rusky 8y agoSure, I certainly agree there. I just thought the OP was going a bit overboard- stifled creativity wasn't an issue here at all.
- xiphias2 8y agoI refuse to acknowledge that C++ is clearly more flexible than Rust. My favourite counterexample is Rayon. Even if you are able to implement something similar in C++ (I tried it), the job of the C++ compiler with understanding when it can inline functions without overhead gets so hard (vs the Rust compiler), that it becomes inpractical. Generally this has been my experience with higher order programming in C++ actually.
- tomjakubowski 8y agoRust is actually looser than C++ in some respects. For example, there are no type-based aliasing rules to worry about in Rust. This makes writing "type punning" style code less of a headache for me, personally.