News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust lifetimes: Getting away with things that would be reckless in C++. Parent comment

Re:Rust lifetimes: Getting away with things that would be re... by pcwalton on Saturday September 20, 2014 @01:52PM (#8345091)
> All code can be broken if you actively try to, so it makes no sense to protect against everything.

That's not Rust's philosophy. Rust is memory-safe, period.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust lifetimes: Getting away with things that would be re... by steveklabnik on Saturday September 20, 2014 @05:22PM (#8345625)
I guess technically 'if you try to' means also abusing unsafe, so in theory he's still sorta right. Every time I see someone ask a question about transmute on IRC I shiver a little.

But yes, Rust is way, way, way better in this regard.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust lifetimes: Getting away with things that would be re... by seabee on Saturday September 20, 2014 @07:03PM (#8345824)
The difference is safe-by-default languages force you to turn off the safeties before they will let you blow your own foot off. C++ doesn't believe in safeties since (at the time the language was designed) it introduces an unacceptable delay between you wanting to pull the trigger and your target and/or feet blowing up.
[ Parent | on HN ]