Comment by uobytx2
10 days ago
No, this isn’t the way to interpret this. Rust has been very successful not just in appearing safer, but actually delivering safety over C. The sense of safety was almost entirely real. Just some situations it didn’t cover.
I don't understand why people talk about this like we live in some fantasy land where C compilers don't have tons of bugs like this. And that's just the bugs, not even the accepted UB.
[flagged]
Please don't cross into personal attack. I realize the parent comment was a bit provocative, but that doesn't make it ok.
We've had to ask you this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> I love the cope required to start ranting about C on a topic where a bug is found on a crítical selling point of rust
Rust was largely created to be safer than C, so comparing Rust to C is always relevant in a thread about Rust's safety.
The comparison (that Rust is still an improvement over C, even if it has bugs) is relevant.