3 ms·
LOL. All the Rust evangelists talk about safety when stuff like this exists? JFC. Can we stop calling Rust safe now? Finally? I mean we all know deep in our hea
by samdoesnothing 11mo ago
LOL. All the Rust evangelists talk about safety when stuff like this exists? JFC. Can we stop calling Rust safe now? Finally? I mean we all know deep in our hearts that trivial memory safety doesn't mean programs are correct or "safe" by any means but its nice to have proof that Rust is fundamentally unsafe for asynchronous tasks at least. Or at least "unsound".
Structured concurrency will always win IMO.
- mustache_kimono 11mo ago> All the Rust evangelists talk about safety when stuff like this exists? JFC. Deadlocks can happen anywhere? You can replicate this pattern in golang.
- yxhuvud 11mo agoWhile I don't like the tone of the grandparent, comparing to Go is kinda irrelevant when it used structured concurrency as the example of how to solve it. It is of course also not a panacea..
- samdoesnothing 11mo agoGolang doesn't have legions of evangelicals claiming it's a safe language and everything should be written in it.
- mustache_kimono 11mo ago> Golang doesn't have legions of evangelicals claiming it's a safe language and everything should be written in it. But, to be very clear, Rust has never claimed to prevent deadlocks? See: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-not-considered-unsafe.html?highlight=deadlock#behavior-not-considered-unsafe https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-not-considered-...