4 ms·
If you want to keep doing programming in a way you are already familiar with, and are not willing to change your way of thinking about programs, yes then it's a
by Voultapher 3y ago
If you want to keep doing programming in a way you are already familiar with, and are not willing to change your way of thinking about programs, yes then it's a bad fit. If you want to write reliable programs, there is evidence that changing the way we think about and express programming problems, can have substantial effects on reliability.
- hgs3 3y agoYou don't need a borrow checker to write reliable programs. If anything the Rust obsession with memory safety has been harmful since it detracts from general safety. But don't take my word for it, maybe consider what the co-author of The Rust Programming Language, 2nd edition has to say [1]. If you really care about writing robust programs then focus on improving your testing methodology rather than fixating on the programming language. [1] https://steveklabnik.com/writing/memory-safety-is-a-red-herring https://steveklabnik.com/writing/memory-safety-is-a-red-herr...
- steveklabnik 3y agoI said that it is necessary, but not sufficient. That does not mean it's a distraction: that means it is foundational.
- pizlonator 3y agoMemory safety is a good thing to obsess over. It's just that we don't need ownership and borrow checking to get there.
- pizlonator 3y agoYou're assuming too much. Not saying we shouldn't change anything. I am saying that adding ownership is't the change that's needed, since you won't be able to convert most C code to that regime.