3 ms·
Did you known that in its early days Rust did take a more Pony-like approach but as ownership/borrowing took shape it was obvious that it was more scalable to m
by newca12 5y ago
Did you known that in its early days Rust did take a more Pony-like approach but as ownership/borrowing took shape it was obvious that it was more scalable to move that abstraction into libraries.
What safe mean is not that easy to define.
From the Pony FAQ:
Pony prevents data races. It can’t stop you from writing race conditions into your program.
Also keep in mind that Rust is not garbage collected, the guarantees Rust provide regarding safety are a huge step forward but of course a lot need to be done.
Those guarantees are not promises, they are formally proven : https://www.ralfj.de/research/thesis.html https://www.ralfj.de/research/thesis.html (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/610682 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/610682)
- rurban 5y agosafe is trivial to define. all the safe languages defined and implemented it. with rust we are still waiting for those promises. remember how eBPF was formally proven to be safe also? until meltdown came along and all those proofs fell down.