Rust is undoubtedly a step forward in correctness, but boy, the article's code is so thick that for me, that I am a C++ programmer, is almost unreadable, especially for a quick reading...
I skipped all the code and only read the text. I got to the point where it mentions that the language prevented them from storing a pointer to a stack object in a heap object, and that's really great, but boy oh boy, the code presented, and the error messages, where very difficult for me to grok even after the first few times...
It seems to me that the more sophisticated the safety a language provides is the more complex its error messages/code are. It would be so nice if we could solve both problems at the same time...
I skipped all the code and only read the text. I got to the point where it mentions that the language prevented them from storing a pointer to a stack object in a heap object, and that's really great, but boy oh boy, the code presented, and the error messages, where very difficult for me to grok even after the first few times...
It seems to me that the more sophisticated the safety a language provides is the more complex its error messages/code are. It would be so nice if we could solve both problems at the same time...