Wait, you're whinging about Rust's iteration time and complexity, but in the same breath talking about code written for spaceships and nuclear power plants!?!?

Wait, you're whinging about Rust's iteration time and complexity, but in the same breath talking about code written for spaceships and nuclear power plants!?!? That's what you're comparing it too!? Do you have actual experience writing programs for spaceships and nuclear power plants? I don't, but I sure as hell would imagine that the regulatory requirements for it make it way more expensive to write than wrangling with rustc. Holy moly. > Rust fanatics Oh okay, so if we're going to go there, then I just get to call you a C fanatic. And yes, indeed, we live on two different planes of existence, as I said. That's for damn sure. > but I can nevertheless point to its absence in official sales pitches Which "official sales pitches"? I don't see any in this HN thread. Yet again applying inconsistent evidentiary standards. > There's plenty of existence-proof systems that are written in C with the goal of saftey and reliability. No libc, and historical programming in general did not have that goal. This has vastly more to do with the history of programming, and its assumptions of non-adversarial low-risk host systems -- than to do with what contemporary C development necessarily looks like. You might be saying something significant in that paragraph of word salad, but I can't spot it. I'm not confused as to why C is the way it is. That isn't the interesting bit. > As-if C developers are actually unable to detect use-after-free or double-free etc. std memory saftey issues; it's absurd. Odd that they keep making that mistake then!