3 ms·

Hint: nobody here has suggested "relying on humans to just not make mistakes".

• Ygg2 4y ago
  You implied when you said: > Most of us have not had any of these faults in years. Zero. I cannot even remember the last time I had one. Or even saw one. Implying it's an issue of just not making mistakes/getting better people/etc. So rather than relying on a strict borrow checker or a GC runtime, you rely that people won't make mistakes.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    I get that you have made that up. In fact, despite aggressive propaganda efforts, the borrow checker is not the only way to get static correctness. Making shit up does not lead to any valid conclusion. That I never have use-after-free or other memory errors is prima facie evidence that their absence is not a matter of "not making mistakes". We all make mistakes. Their entire non-occurrence must be attributed to other reasons. The main effect of your aggressive propaganda efforts is to destroy your credibility, and that of everybody who apes them. Congratulations.
    • Ygg2 4y ago
      > I get that you have made that up. In fact, despite aggressive propaganda efforts, the borrow checker is not the only way to get static correctness I find it interesting that people often like to project their own thoughts onto others. When that happens it causes a sharp contrast between my own and their own reflected opinion: - First off. I never said that borrow checker is only way to ensure static correctness (assuming you don't consider GC static correctness), it's just the most well known, both to me and to people on HN at large. Other approach like Cyclone are mostly research languages. - Second you never proved your code had no user-after-free. Just claimed it was. - Third, propaganda? I just use it and consider more safety better than nothing. It's just a hobby for me. So I have no idea where that came up?