4 ms·

OK, so here's my heartfelt plea: remove the 'unsafe' keyword from Rust? Sure, not being able to do basic things like IO might be a bit of a limitation at first

OK, so here's my heartfelt plea: remove the 'unsafe' keyword from Rust? Sure, not being able to do basic things like IO might be a bit of a limitation at first, but, that's all worth it, I guess? Again: I'm pointing out to you that your absolutist stance on 'unsafe' and 'UB' is doing more harm than good. You continue to choose to ignore this, which is your right. But as a "community leader" you could and should to better. As could I, I guess, by simply ignoring you, but, the mental health issues I see you cause in real-life make that sort-of hard...

commodoreboxer 2y ago
I don't know if he's choosing to ignore it, or if it's simply hard to figure out exactly what you're saying. Your comments are unfocused in a way that makes it hard to engage with any specific point. The points are: * Unsafe Rust is required to uphold specific guarantees to not cause undefined behavior. This can be tricky, but it's not impossible, it just involves a lot of care and some tooling like Miri for those specific situations. The situation is the same as pretty much the entirety of the C and C++ languages, plus Rust reference safety. * Safe Rust is designed to not cause any UB on its own. It can only "bleed" UB from incorrect unsafe code. Without any incorrect unsafe code, this is easy to work with and involves much less work and care. * Therefore, keeping your unsafe blocks small and in dedicated crates where they can be individually tested increases the quality and reliability of the codebase. Surely you can see that it's an improvement over the previous status quo. I don't know what absolutist stance you're talking about. Most Rust fans I know, including myself, accept that Rust is an imperfect language, representing an improvement over C and C++. It's not just hypothetical either. Rust has brought demonstrated improvement in reliability for us, and for some of the biggest companies in the world who now lean on it to reduce their rate of defects.

commodoreboxer 2y ago

I don't know if he's choosing to ignore it, or if it's simply hard to figure out exactly what you're saying. Your comments are unfocused in a way that makes it hard to engage with any specific point. The points are: * Unsafe Rust is required to uphold specific guarantees to not cause undefined behavior. This can be tricky, but it's not impossible, it just involves a lot of care and some tooling like Miri for those specific situations. The situation is the same as pretty much the entirety of the C and C++ languages, plus Rust reference safety. * Safe Rust is designed to not cause any UB on its own. It can only "bleed" UB from incorrect unsafe code. Without any incorrect unsafe code, this is easy to work with and involves much less work and care. * Therefore, keeping your unsafe blocks small and in dedicated crates where they can be individually tested increases the quality and reliability of the codebase. Surely you can see that it's an improvement over the previous status quo. I don't know what absolutist stance you're talking about. Most Rust fans I know, including myself, accept that Rust is an imperfect language, representing an improvement over C and C++. It's not just hypothetical either. Rust has brought demonstrated improvement in reliability for us, and for some of the biggest companies in the world who now lean on it to reduce their rate of defects.