3 ms·
Semantics on "definition". "safety" is not why I use and love it. I brought this up because someone who hasn't used Rust, but reads about it may assume it's a
by the__alchemist 3mo ago
Semantics on "definition".
"safety" is not why I use and love it. I brought this up because someone who hasn't used Rust, but reads about it may assume it's a "safe" language; I would describe it instead as a nice all-around language.
- saghm 3mo agoI don't know if I totally agree with your characterization here either. I'd argue that if you're not actively writing unsafe code, then you are using it as a safe language, in the same way that Python and Java are also safe languages. Yes, I also think it's a quite nice language, but safety is important enough that any time you're comparing a language that can be used safely to one that fundamentally can't enforce safety, framing the choice as purely ergonomic (even implicitly) is misleading.