Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm referring to the fact that the rust code panics at the slightest sign of discomfort. That's kind of up to you as the developer though. I generally avoid writing functions that can panic -- I'd even argue any non-test code that panics is simply poorly written, because you can't "catch" a panic like you can in a high-level language. Better to return an error result and let the calling code decide how to handle it…
I agree with you that error results (and exceptions) are better than panics. I will point out, though, that we're talking about language proclivities. It is entirely up to you as the developer to write memory-safe code in C, and it's possible to do so. Most programmers don't because it's hard to do that once you're doing anything nontrivial. It's also possible to write panic-free rust, but it's hard.
Re: Show HN: I built a Rust crate for running unsafe code safely
#71That's fair. I do wish error handling in Rust were easier (try blocks have been in "unstable" for almost a decade). Panicking probably shouldn't have existed in the first place.