4 ms·
> I'd prefer to focus on the idea that we should have more than one "memory-safe" language. The very very large majority of code written today is done so in a
by pgwhalen 3y ago
> I'd prefer to focus on the idea that we should have more than one "memory-safe" language.
The very very large majority of code written today is done so in a memory-safe language. C/C++ is the only mainstream exception.
The reasons we associate the phrase "memory-safe" with rust is 1) memory safety has been a solved problems for decades for most programming languages, so we forgot about it, and 2) it was _not_ a solved problem for "systems" languages like C/C++ that rust is directly trying to steal market share from.