Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don’t think i’ll ever understand the compile time argument https://xkcd.com/303/

One thing that this blog doesn’t address though, is the cult-like following of Rust. It’s like the “AI” of oss — a main selling point by itself despite not being a feature. Seemingly, there is an assumption that software written in Rust is inherently better than any other, or that if something is written in Rust, it cannot have any errors.

Sure, new software should be written in it instead of C. But why fix programs that are already memory safe?



> Seemingly, there is an assumption that software written in Rust is inherently better

Yes. Both Rust and its standard library have features that make programs be less likely to have problems.

> than any other

No. It's just better than the languages that are very popular right now.

> or that if something is written in Rust, it cannot have any errors.

No. How people keep jumping from "better" to "absolutely 100% infallible" is beyond me. Nobody is claiming this.

> But why fix programs that are already memory safe?

Because:

1. Programs that are already memory safe still need to be improved, and those improvements are really dangerous in a dangerous language

2. Things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46013579




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: