4 ms·
TBH I still don't see it happening or being the case atleast in the near foreseeable future... Why you may ask..? The answer is simple cause there is always a
by minraws 7y ago
TBH I still don't see it happening or being the case atleast in the near foreseeable future...
Why you may ask..? The answer is simple cause there is always a cost.
So the question is what is easier or when can one say the cost of using a "safer" language out weighs a "less safer" one..
Cause otherwise Rust is also too damn unsafe, just move to something completely safe Idris could be a good starting point. /s
Putting the sarcasm aside. Rust is does not guarantee Memory safety, it tries to help with it. (Check Reference Cycles)
The safest feature of Rust would be it's protection against Data Races.
So at the end it's all about the trade-offs and deciding what you are willing to sacrifice and what you aren't...
- nicoburns 7y agoOver the medium term (years to decades), there is no question that rewriting in a safe language is worth the cost. It's a one-time project, and security issues cost our economy billions on an ongoing basis. Rust isn't perfect, and perfect automatically-checked safety probably isn't possible, but it's dramatically safer than C/C++, and cuts down the amount that would need to manually audited to the point where it would be feasible to do it comprehensively.