3 ms·
While correct, the headline is a bit disingenuous and the content is kind of obvious. No systems language will ever be 100% safe, and Rust is not the exception,
by Communitivity 4y ago
While correct, the headline is a bit disingenuous and the content is kind of obvious. No systems language will ever be 100% safe, and Rust is not the exception, as Safe is a spectrum, as Andrew Kelley points out [1].
However, Kelly also points out that Rust tends toward safety. Different languages tend toward safety at different rates, and Rust tends toward safety at a high rate for many reasons. In my experience Rust is the safest language that still allows me to accomplish the professional development tasks I do.
[1] https://twitter.com/andy_kelley/status/1554933549999894528 https://twitter.com/andy_kelley/status/1554933549999894528
- rurban 4y agoOf course there did exist 100% safe system languages. Even concurrency safe. Plenty of them.
- pjmlp 4y agoEven NEWP, still being used today on the ClearPath high security mainframes has an unsafe escape hatch. Note that Burroughs doesn't support Assembly, all low level hardware capabilities are exposed as compiler intrisics.
- tengwar2 4y agoI don't think that this is restricted to systems languages. Any language where you can do something like extend a linked list indefinitely seems to have the potential for "unsafe" problems such as memory exhaustion.