3 ms·
Right, but to my knowledge the other “safety” of rust is concurrency, which is easily attainable with something like Elixir. I’m not saying a GC guarantees all
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Right, but to my knowledge the other “safety” of rust is concurrency, which is easily attainable with something like Elixir.
I’m not saying a GC guarantees all safety, I am saying you can find a GC language that gives all the safety (and technically more) of rust.
My quote of “future unsafety” is that even if your code currently uses only safe rust, their will always be the chance someone adds unsafe rust, increasing the safety issues.
It just seems you can find a GC alternative that will never run into the issues rust can cause, and it will be faster to develope/change (because no borrow checker), and there is no downside.
- josephcsible 4y ago> I am saying you can find a GC language that gives all the safety (and technically more) of rust. Giving "all the safety" is theoretically possible, but "technically more" is not. And even if you did have "all the safety", you'd still have the big performance disadvantage with a GC language. > My quote of “future unsafety” is that even if your code currently uses only safe rust, their will always be the chance someone adds unsafe rust, increasing the safety issues. No there won't. This is what #![forbid(unsafe_code)] is for.