5 ms·

"Not thinking about package management careful makes me sloppy." Isn't the point of a memory safe language to allow programmers to be sloppy without repercussi

"Not thinking about package management careful makes me sloppy." Isn't the point of a memory safe language to allow programmers to be sloppy without repercussions, i.e., to not think about managing memory and even to not understand how memory works. Would managing dependencies be any different. Does Rust allow programmers to avoid thinking carefully about selecting dependencies.

sophacles 2y ago
> Isn't the point of a memory safe language to allow programmers to be sloppy without repercussions, i.e., to not think about managing memory and even to not understand how memory works No. The point is even the best programmers of unsafe languages regularly introduce both simple and subtle bugs into codebases while being careful about handling memory correctly, and therefore we should use languages that don't even allow those bugs for most every use case. Using these languages still allows crap programmers to waste GBs of correctly allocated and handled memory, and good programmers to write tight, resouce-sipping code. Dependencies are orthogonal to this.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
If careful programmers who can manage memory should use the same language as careless ones who cannot, then does this mean both should also automatically use third party libraries by default. Are there systems languages that provide memory management but do not default to using third party libraries. If yes, then do these languages make it easier for programmers to avoid dependencies.
empath75 2y ago
No, the point is to stop you from being sloppy. The code won't compile if you're sloppy with memory management. You can be _relatively_ sure that you're not introducing memory unsafety by adding a dependency, but you can't be sure that it isn't malware unless you audit it.
timewizard 2y ago
> to be sloppy without repercussions It's the difference between a wet mess and a dry one. Rust creates dry messes. It's still a mess.
tester756 2y ago
Ins't the point of protective gear to allow people to be sloppy withouy reprecurssions?
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Computer users that use third party software need protection from the mistakes of programmers. This is achieved by avoiding software written by careless programmers. These programmers generally do not need protection as they have no liability to the computer users they target with their hastily written software. It is the computer users that need "protective gear" not the programmers who make sloppy mistakes.

sophacles 2y ago

> Isn't the point of a memory safe language to allow programmers to be sloppy without repercussions, i.e., to not think about managing memory and even to not understand how memory works No. The point is even the best programmers of unsafe languages regularly introduce both simple and subtle bugs into codebases while being careful about handling memory correctly, and therefore we should use languages that don't even allow those bugs for most every use case. Using these languages still allows crap programmers to waste GBs of correctly allocated and handled memory, and good programmers to write tight, resouce-sipping code. Dependencies are orthogonal to this.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

If careful programmers who can manage memory should use the same language as careless ones who cannot, then does this mean both should also automatically use third party libraries by default. Are there systems languages that provide memory management but do not default to using third party libraries. If yes, then do these languages make it easier for programmers to avoid dependencies.

empath75 2y ago

No, the point is to stop you from being sloppy. The code won't compile if you're sloppy with memory management. You can be _relatively_ sure that you're not introducing memory unsafety by adding a dependency, but you can't be sure that it isn't malware unless you audit it.

timewizard 2y ago

> to be sloppy without repercussions It's the difference between a wet mess and a dry one. Rust creates dry messes. It's still a mess.

tester756 2y ago

Ins't the point of protective gear to allow people to be sloppy withouy reprecurssions?

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

Computer users that use third party software need protection from the mistakes of programmers. This is achieved by avoiding software written by careless programmers. These programmers generally do not need protection as they have no liability to the computer users they target with their hastily written software. It is the computer users that need "protective gear" not the programmers who make sloppy mistakes.