4 ms·

> "It really does feel like rustc is a big step toward the mythical Sufficiently Smart Compiler, letting you write nice code without worrying about a suite of l

by j-pb 4y ago

> "It really does feel like rustc is a big step toward the mythical Sufficiently Smart Compiler, letting you write nice code without worrying about a suite of low-level gotchas." > Hear more from Reliability Project Director https://mobile.twitter.com/rust_foundation/status/1385310806498103297 https://mobile.twitter.com/rust_foundation/status/1385310806...

burntsushi 4y ago
Literally nothing there supports what you said. Don't make shit up.
- j-pb 4y ago
  Don't take things to literally, the outcome of "we set out to build an arbitrarily smart compiler" and "we build an arbitrarily smart compiler to achieve X" are indistinguishable.
  - burntsushi 4y ago
    Neither has occurred and neither will occur. Again, stop making crap up. The goal of the Rust project is not to inject "as much smartness between what you type and what the compiler produces." That's a gross mischaracterization.
    - j-pb 4y ago
      You've chosen a really weird hill to get upset about. You also seem to have a way worse connotation for "smart compilers" than I have.
      - burntsushi 4y ago
        I'm just trying to correct disinformation. It's an important one too, because then otherwise you get to go on pretending as if the Rust project likes complexity for the sake of complexity.
        j-pb 4y ago
        > otherwise you get to go on pretending as if the Rust project likes complexity for the sake of complexity. Your words, not mine. I'm fine with a smart compiler. I also think that a high-level language (which Rust is in a sense) also really needs a spec, which MiniRust graciously provides.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        Not my words, your implication. This isn't about whether you or anyone else "likes" a smart compiler. This is about not making shit up about the goals that others have. Maybe I should have said this before, but I'm part of the Rust project. I've been part of it almost a decade now. There has never been any moment or point in time in which I or anyone else I've seen in the project that has "the goal of putting as much smartness between what you type and what the compiler produces." You are just factually wrong. If anything, it's exactly the opposite. You don't want too much smartness. But you need some of it (to the best of our knowledge) to achieve our actual goals, which, pithily stated, are "a memory safe systems language."

by j-pb 4y ago

burntsushi 4y ago

Literally nothing there supports what you said. Don't make shit up.

j-pb 4y ago
Don't take things to literally, the outcome of "we set out to build an arbitrarily smart compiler" and "we build an arbitrarily smart compiler to achieve X" are indistinguishable.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  Neither has occurred and neither will occur. Again, stop making crap up. The goal of the Rust project is not to inject "as much smartness between what you type and what the compiler produces." That's a gross mischaracterization.
  - j-pb 4y ago
    You've chosen a really weird hill to get upset about. You also seem to have a way worse connotation for "smart compilers" than I have.
    - burntsushi 4y ago
      I'm just trying to correct disinformation. It's an important one too, because then otherwise you get to go on pretending as if the Rust project likes complexity for the sake of complexity.
      - j-pb 4y ago
        > otherwise you get to go on pretending as if the Rust project likes complexity for the sake of complexity. Your words, not mine. I'm fine with a smart compiler. I also think that a high-level language (which Rust is in a sense) also really needs a spec, which MiniRust graciously provides.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        Not my words, your implication. This isn't about whether you or anyone else "likes" a smart compiler. This is about not making shit up about the goals that others have. Maybe I should have said this before, but I'm part of the Rust project. I've been part of it almost a decade now. There has never been any moment or point in time in which I or anyone else I've seen in the project that has "the goal of putting as much smartness between what you type and what the compiler produces." You are just factually wrong. If anything, it's exactly the opposite. You don't want too much smartness. But you need some of it (to the best of our knowledge) to achieve our actual goals, which, pithily stated, are "a memory safe systems language."