4 ms·

> it offers certain guarantees... Does it really, though? Unsafe rust exists, and while the language is certainly built to strongly encourage certain safer pro

> it offers certain guarantees... Does it really, though? Unsafe rust exists, and while the language is certainly built to strongly encourage certain safer programming practices, I don't really see it as offering any guarantees at all. If a project is open source I can go and investigate for myself, but who has the time for that? The guarantees that safe rust provides are very good for me as a developer, because it kills a large class of potential errors and will therefore theoretically make the dev process easier. But I don't really feel any trust in these 'guarantees' when I switch roles to a user of someone else's libraries or products. Most of the rest of your points I agree with, but I also agree with the original comment that it starts to make me feel just a little bit eye-rolly every time I see "...written in Rust." (And I do like the language.)

wilsonthewhale 7y ago
everything needs unsafe code to run, since it has to interact with the OS/CPU/outside world. Rust's main contribution is that provides ways for you to clearly section off and declare that code is "unsafe" and needs extra examination to uphold its invariants. as an example, std::vec::Vec is implemented with quite a bit of unsafe code, but all Rust consumers can be confident that it is vetted and the abstraction presented around it is safe. of course, this isn't a perfect solution, but it's much better than e.g. C/C++, where you basically treat every line as "unsafe".