3 ms·
I apologize for not using a good title, but I think the issues I listed (especially my argument that we should break issues down to bugs in runtime and the limi
by ethegwo 2y ago
I apologize for not using a good title, but I think the issues I listed (especially my argument that we should break issues down to bugs in runtime and the limitations of Rust abstractions) are worth discussing, even if there are many people who argue otherwise
- zbentley 2y agoAgreed, though a better title would probably not use the term "safe" unqualified (e.g. "Async rust with io_uring leaks resources (and risks corrupting program state").
- hitekker 2y agoDon't be hard on yourself. I recall times when Rustaceans eagerly marketed "memory safety" to mean "safety" in general. Sometimes even extending "safety" to mean "bug free". I chalk up the confusion to true believers playing the motte-and-bailey game. When the marketing meaning feels good, they use it all over the place. Then, when the substance doesn't live up to the hype, the fans retreat to the technical definition. This is not a new phenomena: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41994254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41994254