Embed Notice

Anti-#Rust people will literally just say objectively counterfactual bullshit to justify not liking it. Just saw someone insist that rust has as many if not more memory safety violations and other similar problems then C++, and that Ada and restricted formally verifiable subsets of C do the exact same thing Rust does better, neither of which are remotely true.

Even in principle it doesn't make sense to say that rust is worse on memory safety violations and data races and such then C++ because it's entire basic language structure and type system including the borrow check are are designed to make those things Impossible by default and give you a very strong and type verifiable toolkit to avoid them even if you go outside strict references, but the real kicker is that we have empirical evidence from Google's use of rust in Android that the number of memory safety vulnerabilities and high priority security bugs and so on goes down drastically when using Rust. Of course when this was pointed out to the person they just said "I don't trust Android" lol.

Likewise Ada and formally verifiable subsets of C absolutely *don't* do what Rust does as well as Rust does it because Rust was designed to be a successor to those systems. The formerly verifiable subsets of see that they were referring to tend to use garbage collection and be just incredibly restrictive and difficult to use as well.

Additionally someone was talking about how basically any non-trivial C++ code base has massive problems with bugs and architecture and type safetyz and how Rust has a design that strongly helps you avoid a lot of errors and architectural problems, and also gives you an incredibly powerful toolset as well (so it doesn't just limit you, it gives you more power to do things as well, just in a structured way). And the anti-rust person's response was "that's just programmer error, it's not C++'s fault." Literally someone was talking about how one language has much better tools and defaults and affordances and language structures and limitations that enable you to much more easily write better code and their response was just "skill issue, be a better programmer." But the thing is that it is C++'s fault that it doesn't give such affordances and good structure and verification and type safety and limits and all of the other stuff. What they said is like saying that cars shouldn't need airbags because you should just drive better and so if someone died from getting in a car crash in a car with no airbags it was just driver error.