3 ms·
Yes it did. At the very least, something that brings the application down when the dev assumption fails should be called a much more dangerous word than "unwra
by hu3 11mo ago
Yes it did.
At the very least, something that brings the application down when the dev assumption fails should be called a much more dangerous word than "unwrap".
So yes, the language has failed there.
"You're holding it wrong" doesn't uphold when one of the language's touted characteristics is having a bitchy compiler designed to save devs from their own stupidity.
- aw1621107 11mo ago> "You're holding it wrong" doesn't uphold when one of the language's touted characteristics is having a bitchy compiler designed to save devs from their own stupidity. The thing is that Rust's promises are more tightly scoped to very specific types of (mis)behavior. I don't believe it has ever claimed to prevent any and all types of stupidity, let alone ones that have non-stupid uses.