Comment by sunshowers
18 hours ago
From the post:
> You can very well write a Rust function that returns "*" if the password is too long. But the big difference between C and Rust in this regard is that the norms of the Rust community do not allow that.
Yeah, read that, laughed. While the statement may have some truthiness, if one flips it around it is basically saying that the norms of musl community allow programmers to be extra dumb.
Taking a different perspective, there are two intertwined thoughts in the original article and in most comments: 1) language safety, 2) community safety.
Each needs to assessed on its own.
People in glass houses: https://github.com/nextest-rs/nextest/security/advisories/GH...
Whataboutery generally makes it quite clear that your arguments are not in good faith.
There's a difference between whataboutism and calling out hypocrisy, but those are on a spectrum. However, using a sock puppet (or two?) is clearly in bad faith.
Even though it's been beaten to death, I think there are still interesting discussions to be had about the problems in C, possible solutions to those, and which ones Rust provides at what cost. Really, I wish we had a few more options in the "memory safe languages without a garbage collector" space. However, junior evangelists who make themselves feel safer by finger pointing aren't likely to add much value to the conversation.
This particular post is unusual, because it's not even about a flaw in C. Appealing to Rust's culture and norms isn't compelling to me, and it will be insufferable if the newbies start regularly trotting out this nonsense.
I pasted that link to show that Rust doesn't save you from logic errors. I think the best way to get better at programming is to keep doing it while learning from mistakes. I think the best way to proselytize Rust is to finish and deliver good software with it.
1 reply →