I thought that he had apologised and regretted being hostile in comments. Apparently not. Not that I have much of an issue with ranty colorful language, but you need to also be right and have a legitimate cause to pull it off...
The point he makes is BS. "the reality is that there are no absolute guarantees. Ever" Yeah, DUH! The compiler could have bugs and soundness issues for example.
The point is you don't need "absolute guarantees" just "way safer and which dozens more classes of issues discovered automatically" is already enough. The other guy didn't write about "absolute guarantees". He said "WE'RE TRYING to guarantee the absence of undefined behaviour". That's an aim, not a claim they've either achieved it, or they can achieve it 100%
>Even "safe" rust code in user space will do things like panic when things go wrong (overflows, allocation failures, etc). If you don't realize that that is NOT some kind of true safely, I don't know what to say.
Well, if Linus doesn't realize this is irrelevant to the argument the parent made and the intention he talked about, I don't know what to say...
In today's news "random angry guy on the Internet tells Linus Torvalds to go back to kindergarten, because reasons"