alt Hacker NewsYou may have noticed the wave of "rewritten in rust" software in recent years, whose only (?) selling point was that this makes the software somehow automatically safe and if not bug free then at least significantly lower on bugs.
This finding is just yet another nail in the coffin of that myth.
Replies
no-name-here • today at 9:05 AM
> automatically safe
> bug free
In most discussions involving Rust I hear those “counter” criticisms, but is it a common claim by Rust proponents that Rust makes software bug free, etc? I feel like I don’t really encounter the original claim that others are arguing against.
Certhas • today at 8:23 AM
Because?
I have never understood this argument. Rust, by default, is safer. This is trivially true. But it also is not perfect.
This entire argument against Rust hinges on it somehow invalidating all of the improvements it does have, all the safety it does guarantee, just because it also has a few bugs. It's neither a myth that Rust is safer, nor is it a nail in the coffin for it.
Otherwise you must make the argument that just because unsafe exists, and is used, it is automatically as bad as let's say C - a language that has proven time and time again how trivial it is to make mistakes with. Something that just doesn't happen in Rust.