3 ms·
Or maybe using Rust is an instance of the sunk-cost fallacy. It's possible that the net costs of living with Rust's constraints are larger than the cost of re-
by lisper 5y ago
Or maybe using Rust is an instance of the sunk-cost fallacy. It's possible that the net costs of living with Rust's constraints are larger than the cost of re-implementing it in CL. This has undoubtedly been the case for C and C++. The cost of living with C's constraints (or lack thereof) is incalculable, surely billions of dollars, possibly trillions if you add up the costs of all the buffer overflow vulnerabilities that have cropped up through the ages. You could probably write one hell of a CL compiler for a billion dollars.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 5y agoThis is why Apple, Google and Microsoft have finally started to (slowly) move away from them (or deeply push mitigation strategies), with the increase of networked devices, fixing those CVEs is finally making visible results in what would be otherwise profits.
- thewakalix 5y agoI don't think Lisp is as clearly superior to Rust, as Rust is to C.