Comment by kelnos
5 years ago
That is an entirely specious analogy. This code will not cause someone to get sick or die. And "contaminated" vs. "not contaminated" is a binary result for food -- one is the case and one is not the case. With code, there's nearly always room for reasonable disagreement as to what is the right/good or wrong/bad way to do things, and often people argue over two (or more) perfectly fine ways of doing things that just come down to a matter of style.
I'm not sure if this will change your mind, but in the Rust world, there's a concept of "unsafe" code that can lead to vulnerabilities.
The difference here is that a code consumer can check a Rust project for unsafe code, whereas a food consumer cannot check for unsafe contaminants.
If it's OK to demand a project use only Rust and not unsafe Rust, then it must be OK to bitch at every C or C++ project and demand they rewrite in Rust. If that sounds absurd, that's because it's supposed to.
That's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
From what I can tell, actix was using unsafe code to improve benchmark performance, not because safe code was extra work. That's fine, but it was misleadingly marketed as more than a toy project, and it shouldn't have been.
Further, rewriting a project is very different from just making different coding decisions when maintaining an existing project.
I still think the actix critics are showing how irresponsible they are for blindly using a library without researching it well.
Indeed. Not to mention, embracing this analogy means literally all food is poison because every piece of software has critical security vulnerabilities whether they are widely known or as of yet discovered.
Are you seriously claiming that food contamination is a "binary" thing? That it's impossible for food to be only a little contaminated, at a level that won't make you "get sick and die?"
Its common knowledge that a certain amount of food contamination is considered safe. And, although specifics are not generally common knowledge, it's easy enough to find that, e.g., the FDA views < 100 ppb of lead in candy as safe.
I don't think hyperbole is helpful to this conversation.
>Are you seriously claiming that food contamination is a binary thing? That it's impossible for food to be only a little contaminated, at a level that won't make you "get sick and die?"
>I'm sorry, but I think you're being disingenuous. Every little kid knows there's some small amount of nasty stuff that's allowed in things like bread (grasshoppers in the wheat fields caught in the combines) and peanut butter because it's such a small amount of contamination and doesn't pose a health risk.
>Please don't be disingenuous in your arguments. It only serves to exacerbate the polarization over contentious issues.
At least he tried to answer in a good faith. Your answer is a lot worse.
That's exactly it. He did not answer in good faith. He answered with a false dichotomy that everyone knows is false.
Not sure why you're upset at me for calling it out.