Comment by c_crank
3 years ago
Ada, and Cyclone, and Misra C, and various other C formalization tools. It also borrows a lot of the ML stuff from... ML.
Engineers who had safety as their prime goal can and often did use Ada and other tools to achieve that goal. The average Rust developer does not seem to be concerned with safety as a goal for the product specification, but rather as some kind of thematic justification divorced from the actual engineering.
edit: the bogeyman you mention are the developers who flamed Actix, and who make posts saying that unsafe blocks rely on a social contract.
Cyclone is garbage collected.
Yes, Cyclone is probably the single biggest influence on Rust. No, but Rust had to introduce theoretical novelties on top of Cyclone. (Rust was very reluctant to do "research", considering its job to be productizing existing research, but it was forced to research anyway, because nothing existing worked.)
Actix was chalk full of not just unnecessary, but showably unsound usages of unsafe. And then resisted fixing it, and then after another review months later was found to still contain such deficits.
Which, ironically, would have been even worse, written with the same level of care, in C.
"This Haskell program was chalk full of not just unnecessary, but showably unsound uses of UnsafePerformIO..."
The language lets people write code that way if they wish. Why are Rust people so aggressive about that?
Who? Aggressive about what?
Do you get this offended when someone points out obvious bugs and security holes in your C code? What do you expect to happen? The community of people who care about safe systems programming to go "oh yeah it's totally fine that a growing library is full of unnecessary and buggy uses of a language feature"?
Take a step back, yeesh. You're just flailing now, and I think I'm going to let you do that by yourself.
1 reply →