zlacker

>>PaulHo+(OP)
Indexing into arrays and vectors is really wise to avoid.

The same day Cloudflare had its unwrap fiasco, I found a bug in my code because of a slice that in certain cases went past the end of a vector. Switched it to use iterators and will definitely be more careful with slices and array indexes in the future.

>>emschw+bK
> Cloudflare had its unwrap fiasco,

Was it a fiasco? Really? The rust unwrap call is the equivalent to C code like this:

    int result = foo(…);
    assert(result >= 0);

If that assert tripped, would you blame the assert? Of course not. Or blame C? No. If that assert tripped, it’s doing its job by telling you there’s a problem in the call to foo().

You can write buggy code in rust just like you can in any other language.

>>joseph+QW1
I think it's because unwrap() seems to unassuming at a glance. If it were or_panic() instead I think people would intuit it more as extremely dangerous. I understand that we're not dealing with newbies here, but everyone is still human and everything we do to reduce mistakes is a good thing.

>>Deflet+7f2
I'm sure lots of bystanders are surprised to learn what .unwrap() does. But reading the post, I didn't get the impression that anyone at cloudflare was confused by unwrap's behaviour.

If you read the postmortem, they talk in depth about what the issue really was - which from memory is that their software statically allocated room for 20 rules or something. And their database query unexpected returned more than 20 items. Oops!

I can see the argument for renaming unwrap to unwrap_or_panic. But no alternate spelling of .unwrap() would have saved cloudflare from their buggy database code.