News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Announcing Rust 1.20 by fish_fan on Thursday August 31, 2017 @04:24PM (#15143611)
While it may be simpler, it also removes any safety that rust adds. I'd imagine you'd get more mileage out of just using pointers and unsafe blocks liberally to get lifetime checking where you can.
Re:Announcing Rust 1.20 by skariel1 on Thursday August 31, 2017 @05:01PM (#15143880)
It is still safer than c, as it will not allow any segfaults. The only thing that can happen is a runtime error but no memory corruption so it is more akin to say Java or Go
Re:Announcing Rust 1.20 by steveklabnik on Thursday August 31, 2017 @05:08PM (#15143941)
The context of this thread is unsafe, which can segfault.
Re:Announcing Rust 1.20 by ComputerGuru on Friday September 01, 2017 @11:09AM (#15148995)
You are describing the behavior of standard, safe rust code.

Using unsafe blocks throws all that away.