4 ms·
> But the government doesn't want to replace everything with Rust. To be clear, I don't think that they do. To be honest, I am mostly confused by your post, no
by steveklabnik 3y ago
> But the government doesn't want to replace everything with Rust.
To be clear, I don't think that they do. To be honest, I am mostly confused by your post, not because I disagree, but because I am unsure how you came to the conclusion that I believe these things.
- brabel 3y agoFunny, because I came out with the almost opposite impression: that perhaps the legislators will require something stronger than even Rust to consider something "safe" because Rust still allows easy access to things like `unsafe` and FFI like most other languages - and true safety may require more than that. I think our biases, together with the lack of a firm conclusion in this post, leaves the door open to vastly different interpretations.