Comment by benjaminkiefl
11 days ago
As always the same tropes get repeated ad nauseam.
Rust code using `unsafe` != C code:
-) you can encapsulate `unsafe` internals behind safe interfaces
-) you can concentrate operations requiring manual safety reasoning in small parts of the codebase
-) safety obligations become explicit
-) `unsafe` does not turn off the borrow checker, type checking, ordinary bounds checks, or automatic cleanup and you still benefit from Rust's provided abstractions and its composability
I'm not a Rust shill, and not a single programming language I use is part of my online identity, but if "Rust is a cult", the anti-Rust gang isn't?
Getting more and more annoyed by the latter to be honest.
Yeah, I'm always told that the Rust community is obnoxious and condescending. But I never actually see it. I do see a bunch of obnoxious anti-Rusters show up every time Rust gets mentioned to complain about it.
Also not a Rust shill, I used it for a few months about a decade ago. I am a memory-safe-programming-languages shill, though. I know there are good reasons people still use C-family languages (and I'm often one of them) but we should definitely be doing our best to move off them as quickly as we reasonably can.
Youve essentially listed the same point four different ways... Rust merely kicks the UB can down the road.
1. And? The unsafe code could still be memory unsafe
2. But coders can't be trusted to manually manage memory, otherwise you'd just use c++ right? Doesn't matter whether it's marked unsafe or not, you could do that on c code.
3. Not in unsafe rust, that's my whole point. There is only vague guidance on correct unsafe rust. (Because they haven't managed to crack the problem, just draw a perimeter around them)
4. See point 2 rebuttal