Comment by jmull
18 hours ago
> Not sure what your point is
I’m not the previous poster but it seems pretty clear the point is to show how silly that absolutist pronouncement is.
18 hours ago
> Not sure what your point is
I’m not the previous poster but it seems pretty clear the point is to show how silly that absolutist pronouncement is.
Being so absolutist is silly but their counter argument is very weak. Can I invalidate any memory safe language by dredging up old bug reports? Java had a bug once I guess it's over, everyone back to C. The argument is so thin it's hard to tell what they're trying to say.
It's just as reductive as the person they're replying to.
> Being so absolutist is silly but their counter argument is very weak.
The entire point is that being so absolutist is silly.
The comment reflects the previous poster's logic back at them so they (or others) can hopefully see how little sense it makes.
You seem to be trying to see some additional argument about rust being bad/invalid, but there isn't one... The reason that argument is, indeed, "very weak" and "so thin", as you say, is that it isn't even there at all.
> The entire point is that being so absolutist is silly.
You're misinterpreting what Rust people are telling you.
- Rust is safe lang
- Nah, C is safe if you're good
- Rust evangelical gestures towards billions or CVEs brought on by overly-sure C programmers
- Yeah, well, a version of Rust was unsafe for few months ten years ago. Besides Zig prevents more bugs than C and is the successor
- Rust person points to Bun's abysmal record
- Stop being absolutist.
The issue is that in C or Zig few people can write mostly UB free code. In Rust anyone can write UB free code as long as they don't reach for unsafe.
2 replies →