Re:A Sad Day for Rust
by einpoklum on Friday January 17, 2020 @10:44AM
(#22075580)
> It was never Nikolay's job to vet actix-web for you
Perhaps, but if he claimed that it _was_ vetted, then he took on some responsibility for it (which he probably should not have).
Also, the blog post article claims, that you are never supposed to use "unsafe" code without having vetted it. Honestly, I doubt that very much, but if it's true than that's some responsibility taken too.
Re:A Sad Day for Rust
by xamuel on Friday January 17, 2020 @10:51AM
(#22075661)
If a fundamental plank in rust's safety platform involves "apply the honor system to random people on the internet who swear they've vetted something", then that's a problem.
Re:A Sad Day for Rust
by K0nserv on Friday January 17, 2020 @11:03AM
(#22075780)
That’s not true, the convention is to annotate unsafe blocks with a comment explaining why the code is in fact safe. There are even projects that automate looking for these
Perhaps, but if he claimed that it _was_ vetted, then he took on some responsibility for it (which he probably should not have).
Also, the blog post article claims, that you are never supposed to use "unsafe" code without having vetted it. Honestly, I doubt that very much, but if it's true than that's some responsibility taken too.