3 ms·

There's some truth in what you're saying, but its also wildly exaggerated and “everything that is exaggerated is insignificant”.

• hansvm 2y ago
  > but its also wildly exaggerated Such as? > everything that is exaggerated is insignificant But are the non-exaggerated things significant?
  • vacuity 2y ago
    > Memory leaks are not just possible in Rust...IME I see more leaks in Rust in the wild than in C, C#, Python, C++, ... Perhaps, but data here would be nice. Yes, Rust has Rc/Arc and whatnot. If we're talking anecdotes, I mostly see "we rewrote it in Rust and it uses less memory". > You can absolutely have data races in a colloquial sense in Rust, just not in the sense of the narrower definition they created to be able to say they don't have data races... Sure, although it's not a contrived Rust definition. Race conditions are far more general and harder to prevent. Race conditions often arise in higher levels of abstraction, so it's not so much Rust's focus. I don't know what to say about your comment on atomics except that Rust isn't making them much harder than C++ is. > Unsafe is a kind of super-unsafe that's harder to write correctly than C or C++, limiting its utility as an escape hatch... This is definitely important for anyone considering or learning Rust to know. However, how often is this a problem compared to what would be done in C or C++? Someone upthread mentioned enhanced greppability/auditability, Rust has much stronger prevention of memory corruption by default (even if unsafe can poke holes), and the culture is generally more averse to "unsafe". This seems more like a theoretical concern with little practical grounding. I highly doubt this is a real problem.