2 ms·
The downside is that the "revisit the failure modes" step never happens. I've worked on C++ projects with a programmer who commented out "-Wall" with the comme
by mcguire 4y ago
The downside is that the "revisit the failure modes" step never happens.
I've worked on C++ projects with a programmer who commented out "-Wall" with the comment "No one has time for that" (and then I enabled it and spent a couple days with valgrind tracking down crap that should never have happened). I remember the hate for Java's checked exceptions ("Convert them all to unchecked exceptions and forget about it." -> "Why is the app blowing up in production?").
- topspin 4y ago> The downside is that the "revisit the failure modes" step never happens. You exaggerate, but yes crap code exists. As I said, however, you can spot it from across the room with grep -r 'unwrap()'. That's all I ask; can work be evaluated easily? Rust doesn't guarantee correctness; thus unsafe{} pragmatically exists. Rust just makes much incorrectness more obvious and easier to detect, both for the coder and for those upon whom their work is foisted.
- adrianN 4y agoProgrammers who comment out Wall would be even less likely to use Rust if it didn't provide unwrap().