News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rust and the Future of Systems Programming [video] by braveo on Thursday November 17, 2016 @06:18PM (#12982726)
> The fundamental fact remains that the compilers do not warn about the major problem of handling dangling pointers

I'm going to quote myself, emphasis mine.

"The end goal isn't for the compiler to verify the safety, the end goal is for the software itself to be safe in a way that's cheaper."

[snip]

"C++ compilers tend to give pretty good warnings that you can treat as errors, and __coupled with good external tools__ it isn't clear that rust is significantly safer than C++."

Re:Rust and the Future of Systems Programming [video] by leshow on Friday November 18, 2016 @09:22AM (#12986916)
quoting pcwalton up above:

"I don't care if the software is verified via libraries or compilers. The problem is that C++ verifiers don't work."

Re:Rust and the Future of Systems Programming [video] by braveo on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:49PM (#12996625)
right, I too can make assertions with no evidence to back them up.

If that's really your bar, then we don't have much more to discuss.