undefined | Better HN

0 pointsuecker2mo ago0 comments

I am not saying that safety culture is irrelevant, not at all. I am saying that if the advantage of Rust is the culture that emphasizes safety (or rather memory safety, if the Rust community cared about safety in general cargo would not exist in this form) then that is a weak argument.

I don't think 10 years ago there was a lot of Rust used, so I am not sure how relevant it is that 1.0 was released at this time.

0 comments

vlovich1232mo ago

The culture of Rust is pretty uniform both in terms of convention (lots of good examples to learn from) and automated tooling (eg cargo clippy can fix many constructs into cleaner versions).

But sure, ultimately any code you see is limited by the talent of the author. However the safety of that code is not - it’s limited by how many unsafe blocks they wrote which you can actually grep for.

ueckerOP2mo ago

This is a naive and dangerous view of "unsafe". The safety of surrounding code depends on the unsafe blocks not violating invariants of safe Rust, and the safety of "unsafe" blocks may rely on assumptions about the safe part. Also it relates only to memory safety, so if your code review is to grep for "unsafe" blocks you are doing it wrong anyway.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsuecker2mo ago0 comments

I don't think 10 years ago there was a lot of Rust used, so I am not sure how relevant it is that 1.0 was released at this time.

0 comments

vlovich1232mo ago

The culture of Rust is pretty uniform both in terms of convention (lots of good examples to learn from) and automated tooling (eg cargo clippy can fix many constructs into cleaner versions).

ueckerOP2mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse