4 ms·
I think you need to develop this point a bit more: at face value it looks (to me) like you are saying: "The borrow checker is more complex than simple malloc/f
by elteto 6y ago
I think you need to develop this point a bit more: at face value it looks (to me) like you are saying:
"The borrow checker is more complex than simple malloc/free calls therefore it is less safe."
Which is clearly wrong.
- amelius 6y agoBut you can also compare it to a GC'd language, which from this viewpoint is safer. A GC'd language, however, is usually not preferred for systems work. However, most applications don't fall in that category.
- muldvarp 6y agoI don't think GC'ed languages are actually safer from a memory safety viewpoint, they're just easier to use.
- dnautics 6y agoit depends on the GC'd language. You absolutely cannot do use-after-free, double-free, or stack overflow in erlang (unless you FFI into C). You can OOM erlang (but you can OOM Rust, too).
- pjmlp 6y agoMostly due to cargo cult and politics than anything else.