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
I mean, it's felt like anytime anyone mentions any code base not written in rust, someone pops in and points out that it's not safe, and should be rewritten in rust.

I think it's all part of the language maturing process. Give it time, zealots will either move on to something new (and then harass the rust community for not meeting their new standard of excellence) or simmer down and get to work.

>>chrsig+tb
Well they're right. Most code written in C is horribly unsafe. Most code written in Rust is very safe. No code is guaranteed to be 100% safe - not even formally verified code.

There's a clear safety spectrum, with C near the bottom and Rust near the top. It's tedious for people to keep saying "well it's not right at the top so we should just keep using C".

I'm sure pro-seatbelt people were called "zealots" back in the day too.

>>IshKeb+wb2
Rust isn't seatbelts, Rust is a tank. It's hard to steer, you need 4 people to operate it, but it's safe from bullets. It can also sink in quicksand or mud very easily. Rust advocates ignore the usability problems and say "Drive a tank everywhere, it's bullet-safe". Meanwhile the average programmer will get lost in the complexity of Rust and invent shortcuts like using unsafe {} in exactly the wrong place.