3 ms·
You're focusing purely on the problem-fixing aspects, but Rust's expressiveness is why I like it. C can't match that. In C, you're basically acting as a human
by antonvs 1y ago
You're focusing purely on the problem-fixing aspects, but Rust's expressiveness is why I like it.
C can't match that. In C, you're basically acting as a human compiler, writing lots of code that could be generated if you used a more expressive language. Plus, as has been mentioned, it supports refactoring easily and safely better than any language outside of the Haskell/ML space.
The advantages of Rust are a package which includes safety, expressiveness, refactoring support. You don't need to exaggerate anything for that package to make sense.
- uecker 1y agoI am not criticizing anyone for preferring Rust. I reject the idea that its complexity needs to imposed on everybody because of "safety"
- antonvs 1y agoThe "impose on everybody" is based on clear, objective metrics at the national and international level. The fact that you, as an individual, prefer to use an unsafe, weakly typed language isn't very relevant to that. The issue is not that it's not possible to write secure programs in C, the issue is that in practice, on average, people don't. Pushing the use of memory-safe languages will reduce the number of security vulnerabilities in the entire software ecosystem.