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
It's not unassuming. Rust is superior to many other languages for making this risky behaviour visually present in the code base.

You can go ahead and grep your codebase for this today, instead of waiting for an incident.

I'm a fairly new migrant from Java to C#, and when I do some kind of collection lookup, I still need to check whether the method will return a null, throw an exception, expect an out+variable, or worst of all, make up some kind of default. C#'s equivalent to unwrap seems to be '!' (or maybe .Val() or something?)

>>mrkeen+Yu2
Whether the value is null (and under which conditions) is encoded into the nullability of return value. Unless you work with a project which went out of its way to disable NRTs (which I've sadly seen happen).