Viewing profile — whytevuhuni

> Tell me why you think you're right. The more verification you do, the more likely it is for a program to be correct. Lean towards Assembly, and you get less correctness, but lean…

> * laugh track deafening * No shallow dismissals please, tell me why you think I'm wrong. > Rust is not a major advance over C/C++ Rust adds the borrow checker (and especially wit…

The Blub Paradox [1]. Granted I doubt how true that is, I always understood the benefits of languages like Haskell and Ada/SPARK, it's just that pragmatically speaking I want begin…

Many Rust proponents are experienced C programmers (me as an example). We speak of the horrors of C/C++ precisely because we've seen both sides (3 sides more specifically), and can…

Yes, except imagine the distance in correctness between Assembly and C, and triple it. Less so compared to C++ of course. The sentiment of "if it compiles it probably works" for la…

How much of Valhalla is this? 50% of it? 90% of it?

Probably dance.

Yeah, this has come up a few times when I was coding Rust. From just reading your code I know for sure that i is a usize (indexing is very common), but don't know what j is (I usua…

In production you generally want your code to not be 1.5x-2x slower than C/C++, otherwise people will ditch your whole language with all its other benefits in pursuit of performanc…

Rust helps prevent some race conditions, but an unqualified "prevents race conditions" sounds like it eliminates them, hence why GP says it does not.

> So you haven't understood the distinction or you're letting your feelings for software get the best of you. Maybe? I'm not sure. > The proof that there are no (for rust's definit…

I’ve understood the distinction. I just don’t like you equating “actually not safe” with “worthless”.

Of course, but even the presence of CVEs does not make software worthless, it just makes it worth less.

But code is not mathematics, so incorrect code is not worthless, it’s just worth less. It’ll most likely still do 99% of the things people need it to do, there’ll be a an issue cre…

Only ~4% of code is inside an unsafe block, so the idea is that for new code/contributions, the chance of introducing a new memory-safety bug is an order of magnitude lower. Maybe …

If cve-rs exists, we still say that safe Rust is safe, in the same way that we say Python is safe despite potential bugs in its interpreter or native libraries, and that Java is sa…

> "unsafe" is in practice often needed for performance in Rust That's the power of Rust, not a limitation of it. Rust thrives on its ability to provide safe interfaces over unsafe …

> honestly thats the biggest problem with rust, they come up with a lot of useful changes but then take ages to stabilize because the core team is overworked On the contrary, that …

GP is referring to the article's title, as in "safe Rust", as in "Rust with no unsafe keyword", as in whether it has undefined behavior or not. Granted the premise is rather brittl…

And also one I'd like to see in more languages! Especially a simpler one, closer to C.

> If you don't use panics, you don't get the machinery. I'm not using panics, and yet I'm getting the machinery. That is where my frustration is coming from.

It is a fundamental language limitation, unless you want to claim that the core library (or rather what's left when using no_std) is not part of the language. The problem comes fro…

I tried to use Rust for a tiny microcontroller (GD32VF103, 128KB flash). First of all, I was amazed by how much I could do with Rust ( safe Rust, even), and how well it was interfa…

Pretty much everything except Haskell and the like can be considered as such. That's because closely following PL theory isn't always the right goal for a language. Ergonomics and …

Languages, no. But for language-agnostic package managers, Nix/Guix and Gentoo are similar. Sadly, Gentoo is not great for managing per-project dependencies in the same way as is d…