alt Hacker News> The main problem, however, was code quality.
> The sleight of hand misdirects the reader away from the main way bugs are eliminated: by dedicating engineering resources to it.
Perhaps the amount of bugs comes from using a C-like language that requires meticulous manual care to avoid writing runtime bugs.
Even C++ would be a safer choice because of RAII.
When you have to dedicate significant resources to avoid/fix runtime issues that are made impossible at compile time by other languages, the programmer isn't entirely at fault.
Replies
You have to put similar amount of resources when writing in Rust as well. With the difference that it’s more front loaded. Personally I’m a fan of Rust’s approach but the price for having bug free code has to be paid, regardless, one way or the other.
C++ would also introduce a myriad other subtle safety problems that would require years of expertise to even notice.
I’ve not seen any languages that does not require meticulous care to avoid runtime bugs. Type checking and lifetime ownership eliminate some, but not all of them.
Memory safety problems are still possible in the new Rust Bun: