4 ms·
> Is it possible to create a truly safe language without the dizzying complexity? In Rust the complexity comes from elsewhere (eg rejecting GC), there are lots
by fulafel 4y ago
> Is it possible to create a truly safe language without the dizzying complexity?
In Rust the complexity comes from elsewhere (eg rejecting GC), there are lots of easier languages that match the safety.
Rust is not really the paragon of safety, its guarantees are similar to easy languages like F# or even Java. And behind Ada.
- biorach 4y ago> And behind Ada. https://lwn.net/Articles/908057/ https://lwn.net/Articles/908057/ > The biggest problem of Ada IMO is that it was always supposed to be about safety, but it never addressed the most common source of bugs: pointer safety. Not even with SPARK. It's like discussing about how can you fortify the door in a house with three walls. I suspect they planned to solve it like everyone else (with tracing GC), but that never materialised (because most Ads users don't want tracing GC) thus was always kinda weird “safe” language which doesn't tackle the most common source of bugs. > Finally, in year 2020, it solved that problem. By picking ideas from Rust, of course. > But by that time momentum was lost and it would be very hard to overcome that “safe language without safety” stigma.
- fulafel 4y agoYep. Borrowing ideas is good and completely ok, as Rust also does copiously, this is how our languages improve. But of course Ada has a lot of other safety features that Rust does not.