5 ms·

You still seem to be completely misunderstanding, as is evident from the fact that your argument "proves" that in Rust you don't even need to write any tests. A

• dlahoda 1y ago
  sorry, where exactly i stated no need to write tests? i argue, overall, that antithesis less likely will be adopted in rust because language itself (in sense extended to typelevel patterns and in macro simulations) and its ecosystem (by ecosystem i mean available libraries and tools and integrations which cover a lot of antithesis agenda). i did not expanded ecosystem argument so, because there was objection to that yet.
  • vlovich123 1y ago
    > i doubt, rust has a lot of tooling and catches at compile time what their product does in runtime. You're making the claim that Antithesis isn't necessary because compile time type-checking solves problems that Antithesis is targeting. That's strictly not true; the kinds of bugs that Antithesis is targeting are not solved via type checking and has never been something Rust has targeted at solving, through ecosystem or otherwise. See my example about trying to implement a distributed consensus algorithm.
    • dlahoda 1y ago
      > You're making the claim that Antithesis isn't necessary because compile time type-checking solves problems that Antithesis is targeting sorry, i never claimed what you stated above. you have taken only part of my initial statement and made total nonsense of it by stating it is the only one thing i said. i said: 1. rust needs antithesis less of others 2. rust has equivalent tooling for free 3. biz practices of antithesis will harm its adoption, in rust eco
      • Smaug123 1y ago
        Can you point to any of Rust's supposed "equivalent tooling"?