A counterpoint: I often found cppreference.com very useful when ironing out parts of C++ that I’m not sure about. (Yeah it’s not the full spec, but it’s at leas

A counterpoint: I often found cppreference.com very useful when ironing out parts of C++ that I’m not sure about. (Yeah it’s not the full spec, but it’s at least a concise version of it made to be understandable for mortals.) Although the language has many cases of undefined behavior, at least they are clearly written down. Sucks to figure out how these rules all interact with each other though. Meanwhile, for unsafe Rust, if you look at the Rust Reference Book, there is a single page that lists the possible situations for undefined behavior, with an added warning message: “Warning: The following list is not exhaustive. There is no formal model of Rust's semantics for what is and is not allowed in unsafe code, so there may be more behavior considered unsafe. The following list is just what we know for sure is undefined behavior. Please read the Rustonomicon before writing unsafe code.” Then when I look at the Rustonomicon, it says: “Warning: This book is incomplete. Documenting everything and rewriting outdated parts take a while. See the issue tracker to check what's missing/outdated, and if there are any mistakes or ideas that haven't been reported, feel free to open a new issue there.” So maybe that should be more prioritized if Rust really wants to get the reputation of a safe, stable language. (Safe Rust is good, but Unsafe is where the real devils are all hidden…)