zlacker

>>rvz+(OP)
I’ve been using Rust for a while, and I’m so, so tired of hearing this argument.

Yes, we know. We get it. Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs. This is obvious and well-known to anyone actually using Rust.

At this point, the argument feels like some sort of ideological debate happening outside the realm of actually getting work done. It feels like any time someone says that Rust defends against certain types of safety errors, someone feels obligated to pop out of the background and remind everyone that it doesn’t protect against every code safety issue.

>>Pragma+b8
It's really common to see people say meaningless stuff like "Rust is a safe language" which is either deeply confused or deeply misleading.

Rust provides certain guarantees of memory safety, which is great, but it's important to understand exactly what that means and not to oversell it.

>>TillE+Oa
It's an unproductive pedantry to expect every mention of the generalisation to be followed by a full disclaimer about exceptions and edge cases.

People say "it's raining" without having to add "except under roofs".

>>pornel+4d
Think of it as elaborating, rather than disclaiming. There is a real problem in the realm of Rust advocacy where people make a blanket claim, either wrongfully assuming it is true or assuming that others are aware of the limitations of the claim. This is a problem when the reader is not aware of the limits of what is being said, while creating conflict when the reader calls out the limitations.

Reading a book on Rust programming is an entirely different matter since authors tend to elaborate upon what they are claiming. The reader has to understand how things work and what the limits are. As such, there is less opportunity for misinformation to spread and less room for conflict.