bcjdjsndon

> Rust allows you to achieve with syntax what these good codebases achieve through diligence

Rustaeceans often play this card... What you should really say is safe rust achieves it through syntax, yet as a systems language you will need to invoke unsafe rust, which by definition is not "memory safe". And memory unsafe is bad right? So bad it's worth changing the language to avoid it.... Yet rust doesnt avoid it?

I'm just not as impressed by that as you are

> People using a tool in the wrong way is not necessarily an argument against the tool though

Apart from when that tool is a memory unsafe language though...

Isn't rust as a replacement to c one of the central selling points of rust? Ie the tool is crap because people are misusing it

> A great deal of Rust code need not ever involve the unsafe block, and in these cases there is no great temptation to stray off this path

Rust was an attempt to have the compiler manage memory, but they couldn't crack it, so they had to just push all the failures to conquer c style UB under rusts unsafe keyword...

Good codebases already do what rust is doing with the borrow checker, it's not rocket science.

There's a serious argument for cherry picking rusts good parts and Retrofitting them into a more entrenched language.

Youve essentially listed the same point four different ways... Rust merely kicks the UB can down the road.

1. And? The unsafe code could still be memory unsafe

2. But coders can't be trusted to manually manage memory, otherwise you'd just use c++ right? Doesn't matter whether it's marked unsafe or not, you could do that on c code.

3. Not in unsafe rust, that's my whole point. There is only vague guidance on correct unsafe rust. (Because they haven't managed to crack the problem, just draw a perimeter around them)

4. See point 2 rebuttal

> Similar to accepting code with empty or nonsensical `catch` blocks.

You can still find a lot of that in production code though. You're imagining a perfect world where everyone does the correct thing, but id that world existed we would need rust in the first place

Cos that worked in the past right? Remember when Devs weren't checking error codes so languages added exceptions that were apparently meant to fix that gap. Except for the reality was a lot of empty try/catch blocks, or the errors just getting ignored anyway.

Same thing will happen to unsafe rust once it becomes ubiquitous and we will be back talking about how to fix the problem of stupid coders

The area to which you assign that index is arbitrary.

> The Sahara in its current state is much more barren in terms of ecological diversity than it once was.

Then answer me this... What would be an appropriate level of diversity?

The man said this...

> I try to keep myself sharp by still manually doing a fair amount of things in my life.

I then list a load of shit that shows hes doing next to fuck all manually.

The man is larping.

The man is surrounded by technologys of convenience.... Is he manually communicating or using a computer and the internet? How does he get everywhere? What about Aircon, heating? I'm guessing he has a fridge, oven, telephone, various white goods. As he doesn't live like the Amish, how does he get his gas, water, electricity... pull then from the ground himself?

So yes, he's larping if he thinks not using an llm is the humble life