4 ms·
You are right that the argument boils down to what we take "by construction" to mean. I will resolve this, simply, by saying whatever advertisement Rust makes
by mjburgess 4y ago
You are right that the argument boils down to what we take "by construction" to mean.
I will resolve this, simply, by saying whatever advertisement Rust makes for itself, is better made by any "dynamic" language.
And if we're inclined to trade PR against PR, Rust looses. Managed memory has better PR.
And so those repeating the Rust agitprop against managed languages are simply "NPCs for the wrong ideology".
- Yoric 4y agoI would articulate things differently. Theoretically, memory-safety between Rust and managed languages is equivalent. However, memory-safe languages (i.e. not Managed C++) running on a memory-safe VM have one more layer of defense in depth than Rust. This matters in case there is a bug in the compiler or any of the dependencies. Additional layers may include, for instance, Unix and containers. "dynamic" languages, though? That's entirely orthogonal to memory-safety and not very good for general software safety.