11–20 of 58 posts
>So is Zig a better alternative to writing unsafe Rust?
The title here and what he has in his post are the same, but in the tl;dr along with the slug of the url which is "unsafe-rust-vs-zig".
We need to realize it's a very specific case he's talking about, rather than in general. The pain of titles.
It is still in Rust.
I really disagree with this take, given the examples of unsafe code the article chose to exhibit. Trying to write C in Rust totally goes against the grain of Rust's ergonomics, which are oriented towards discouraging unsafe code patterns. It should be a pain to attempt something dangerous, and it should feel really easy to write safe code, because this setup naturally encourages the vast majority of code to be written safely.
> Writing a substantial amount of unsafe Rust really sucks the beauty out of the language. I really disagree with this take, given the examples of unsafe code the article chose to exhibit. Trying to write C in Rust totally goes against the grain of Rust's ergonomics, which are oriented towards discouraging unsafe code patterns. It should be a pain to attempt something dangerous, and it should feel really easy to writ…
> It was a major pain dealing with all the nuances of unsafe Rust.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/crt-...
I would be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy. I think there ought to be a subset of Rust that uses Arc for everything, maybe with a language feature that desugars into it. Obviously this requires compilers to be able to reason and optimize out atomics.
> Writing a substantial amount of unsafe Rust really sucks the beauty out of the language. I really disagree with this take, given the examples of unsafe code the article chose to exhibit. Trying to write C in Rust totally goes against the grain of Rust's ergonomics, which are oriented towards discouraging unsafe code patterns. It should be a pain to attempt something dangerous, and it should feel really easy to writ…
Deciding that these areas "should be a pain" seems tantamount to saying Rust shouldn't be used for them. Which is sort of the article's point.
I feel like there's space for imperative, garbage collected, pattern matching, and ADT language. Just Golang + pattern matching + ADT. I would be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy. I think there ought to be a subset of Rust that uses Arc for everything, maybe with a language feature that desugars into it. Obviously this requires compilers to be able to reason and optimize out atomics.
Last submission and discussions with 221 comments.
I feel like there's space for imperative, garbage collected, pattern matching, and ADT language. Just Golang + pattern matching + ADT. I would be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy. I think there ought to be a subset of Rust that uses Arc for everything, maybe with a language feature that desugars into it. Obviously this requires compilers to be able to reason and optimize out atomics.