2 ms·
I should have bookmarked the HN post that said it :) It was one of the usual "if you'd have rewritten it in rust you'd have had no problems" posts. But instead
by nottorp 2y ago
I should have bookmarked the HN post that said it :)
It was one of the usual "if you'd have rewritten it in rust you'd have had no problems" posts. But instead of the usual memory safety list, they also added no deadlocks to the benefits.
- nottorp 2y agoHey now Rust is also garbage collected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43555249#43592602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43555249#43592602 I wonder what they'll add to it by tomorrow...
- aw1621107 2y agoI think that's more a case of unnecessary pedantry. Rust "has garbage collection" in that you can opt in to the lifetime of some objects being handled by some kind of garbage collection. Rust doesn't "have garbage collection" in that Rust does not require a GC'd runtime to implement its semantics in a memory-safe manner. Two different concepts with similar terminology. Edit: Also looking at that commenter's history I am rather skeptical they would reasonably be considered a "Rust evangelist"