4 ms·
For a lot of cases, 0% unsafe code is pretty unrealistic. Using even 50% unsafe code means that you must be able to reason about how safe and reliable the code
by _hypx 3y ago
For a lot of cases, 0% unsafe code is pretty unrealistic. Using even 50% unsafe code means that you must be able to reason about how safe and reliable the code really is. At which point you are better off with a simple language that a good developer can quickly figure out what is happening. A complex language makes this harder, not easier.
- xedrac 3y agoI think we can just disagree here. But I have to assume you haven't done any significant development in Rust, or at least haven't experienced the freedom it gives once you get over the initial awkwardness. I find Rust is easier to reason about than C, partially because it's more explicit. And that its compiler is better than a good C developer. I've mentored many veteran embedded C developers who scoffed at Rust with a similar attitude. Within a month or two though, they all changed their tune and came to prefer it.
- _hypx 3y agoYou are basically attacking a strawman. It is not Rust vs. C, but Rust vs. alternatives to C. It is unlikely that Rust will end up being better than all alternatives that are being developed.
- xedrac 3y agoDidn't mean to attack. I just didn't see any valid arguments as to why Rust was less suited to replace C than other candidates.