4 ms·

Your point being?

• Touche 7y ago
  You don't have a 100% guarantee if unsafe is being used.
  • cinnamonheart 7y ago
    Among others, Haskell has bottom, unsafeCoerce, unsafePerformIO, and Data.Dynamic. Even in the dependently typed Agda, you have postulates and pragmas like NON_TERMINATING and NO_POSITIVITY_CHECK. Is there any language out there with no unsafe hatches? Even in the most rigorous languages I'm aware of, I don't think 100% guarantees exist. Some languages get a lot closer than others, though -- I think Elm, Rust, Haskell, and so on are still a big improvement over the status quo of languages. I'd rather get 90% of the way there than 10%.
    • Touche 7y ago
      I don't disagree, seems weird that the author made such a big deal of the 99% vs 100% thing when 100% is not something Rust has.
  • Sindisil 7y ago
    No. But you the areas of unsafety are explicitly indicated, of limited scope, and not the default. Also, even in unsafe code, Rust offers more guarantees than many (most?) languages.
    • Touche 7y ago
      So not 100%. Kind of defeats the argument, imo. Now we're just talking about shades of grey.