3 ms·

> there is no absolute safety Now we've come full circle. I recommend you go back and read my initial comment in this thread and the comment I was responding t

> there is no absolute safety Now we've come full circle. I recommend you go back and read my initial comment in this thread and the comment I was responding to. You've veered far off course from there into waters in which we likely have very little disagreement of any consequence. > And Java can have surprisingly good performance Show me a regex engine written in Java that can compete with my own, RE2, PCRE2 or one of a number of production grade regex engines written in C, C++ or Rust. I'm not aware of any. That Java can "have surprising good performance" is not a statement I'd ever disagree with in general terms. That has absolutely zero to do with anything I've written in this thread (or elsewhere, ever). Will all due respect, I think you've lost the script here.

kaba0 4y ago
You may be right, I’m not really disagreeing, I can absolutely stand behind this sentence of yours: > Where Rust is (somewhat although not entirely) unique is bringing this compartmentalization into a context that (mostly) lacks a runtime and garbage collection I just think that the model of “breaking down” is different between the two platforms and that might matter for some use cases.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  Right, that's why I said: > But it's not completely obvious to me that you're correct. :-) Which is to say, I don't know you're wrong. But it's a pretty subtle thing that requires a careful survey. And likely discussion of lots of concrete examples. It's far more nuanced than the thing I was responding to originally (not to you), which was this wrong-headed notion that Rust isn't memory safe "entirely." Because once you go down that path, the entire notion of "memory safety" starts to unravel. That is, of course Rust isn't "entirely" memory safe. Pretty much nothing practical actually is in the first place. I tried to force this issue by asking for counter-examples. The only good one I got was Javascript in browser, but that basically falls under the category of "programs in a strictly controlled sandbox" rather than "programming language" IMO. I think this comment of mine might also be helpful, which reflects a bit on terms like "memory safety" and why they are a tricky but very common type of phenomenon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33825307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33825307

kaba0 4y ago

You may be right, I’m not really disagreeing, I can absolutely stand behind this sentence of yours: > Where Rust is (somewhat although not entirely) unique is bringing this compartmentalization into a context that (mostly) lacks a runtime and garbage collection I just think that the model of “breaking down” is different between the two platforms and that might matter for some use cases.

burntsushi 4y ago
Right, that's why I said: > But it's not completely obvious to me that you're correct. :-) Which is to say, I don't know you're wrong. But it's a pretty subtle thing that requires a careful survey. And likely discussion of lots of concrete examples. It's far more nuanced than the thing I was responding to originally (not to you), which was this wrong-headed notion that Rust isn't memory safe "entirely." Because once you go down that path, the entire notion of "memory safety" starts to unravel. That is, of course Rust isn't "entirely" memory safe. Pretty much nothing practical actually is in the first place. I tried to force this issue by asking for counter-examples. The only good one I got was Javascript in browser, but that basically falls under the category of "programs in a strictly controlled sandbox" rather than "programming language" IMO. I think this comment of mine might also be helpful, which reflects a bit on terms like "memory safety" and why they are a tricky but very common type of phenomenon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33825307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33825307