2 ms·
> I think rust is just safer period, regardless of your level of expertise or background. Or are you saying that every memory safety bug was written in by someo
by kelnos 2y ago
> I think rust is just safer period, regardless of your level of expertise or background. Or are you saying that every memory safety bug was written in by someone inexperienced?
I think you're reading too much into that and creating conflict where there isn't any. GP just meant that they had a bunch of interpreted language OOP developers (probably Java or C# or something like that), and they wanted them to start writing code in an AOT-compiled language (yes, I know about Graal native image; not the point). And that teaching them Rust is probably going to result in safer code than if they were to teach them C or C++.
That shouldn't be a controversial statement.
- bigiain 2y agoAlso, without claiming that experienced c/c++ developers never write memory safety bugs, I don't think it's at all controversial to say inexperienced c/c++ developers write a lot of them (and hopefully experienced ones write way fewer).
- Fulgen 2y ago(Also not the point, C# can be AOT-compiled as well these days)
- a57721 2y ago> GP just meant that they had a bunch of interpreted language OOP developers (probably Java or C# or something like that), and they wanted them to start writing code in an AOT-compiled language (yes, I know about Graal native image; not the point). JIT vs. AOT is not the same as being an interpreted language. For most applications, running on top of the virtual machine is a good thing, I don't see JVM developers turning to different languages just to escape the JVM, outside of some niche projects.