2 ms·

You can. There are definitely still footguns - some things are just not easy. But there are also fewer footguns, and the overall type system makes modelling pro

You can. There are definitely still footguns - some things are just not easy. But there are also fewer footguns, and the overall type system makes modelling problems in ways which are often simpler to reason about more achievable (trivial example - state machines are common, and easy to represent in relatively safe ways with exhaustively checked enums, matching, etc.) Is rewriting something in Rust a guarantee of no bugs? Nope. But it does likely make it easier for the rewriters to reduce the number of bugs.

danudey 3y ago
Also, since Rust provides and enforces the mechanisms to bypass huge swaths of bugs, like many locking errors, concurrency, exhaustive enum checking, etc., that frees up developers to spend their time debugging or reinforcing other areas where Rust can't make similar guarantees of correctness. I recall reading somewhere that a lot of the ideas for Rust's safety system came from a Firefox analysis of bugs that had been reported and fixed, where something like 70% of bugs fell into a few broad categories (mostly memory safety, like use-after-free, buffer overruns, off-by-one, etc) which they could solve in a new language that could enforce correctness. The idea of being able to remove 70% of bugs, and to effectively guarantee that any bugs that do occur happen in those remaining 30% of areas, sounds like it could save a lot of developer time.