> Oh, please. Nobody is saying that Rust is perfect (...)
This is the kind of fallacies that dominate Rust fanboy's discourse.
You start off by mindlessly commenting on "constant stream of CVEs", but when you're faced with the reality that Rust also piles up CVEs then you start to try to move goalposts around. Odd how you switched from CVE talk to vague allusions of "perfection", as if now CVEs don't matter.
That's the problem with your type of fanaticism: you stop makint technical claims and instead resort to sweeping baseless accusations,as if that was a positive trait on a language and it's community.
> “Correctly” isn’t a weasel word, especially not in the context of describing how a program functions.
It is. There is no way around it.
> My comment about easier to learn was written in the context of reaching the level needed to reliably write safe code (...)
Again with the goalpost-moving/weasel word combo.
Rust is notoriously unfriendly to beginners and imposes an unparalleled learning curve. Around a quarter of new developers outright give up and quit over how unusable it is to them. This is acknowledged by the Rust community itself as demonstrated by the last annual Rust survey. There is no way around it. I don't know why anyone would try to waste time handwaving over this.
> For example, Android reports halving their code rollback rate and a significant reduction in the number of vulnerabilities by (...)
Here's the problem with this sort of specious reasoning. You are cherry-picking an example of how a project invested heavily in memory safety and therefore ended up lowering vulnerabilities. You ignore how much work was invested into processes and prioritizing specific types of problems. You instead decide to ignore everything and anything, and opt to go the simplistic path of pretending that the only step required to achieve these gains is onboarding a magical tool, as if nothing else was a factor.
Do you understand how this blend of cargo cult mentality is silly and unproductive?
I get it that you feel the need to promote a tool you like. That's fine. But if you had a case you wouldn't feel compelled to frame all your arguments on artificial scenarios you try to pin on all other tools, would you?
> This is the kind of fallacies that dominate Rust fanboy's discourse
Take a chill pill, you have completely derailed you argument with personal attacks in place of substance. You would have to be willfully ignorant to think Rust isn't safer than C++, and I say that as someone who refuses to use Rust.
Your accusations of fanaticism are most amusing given how you’re misrepresenting what I wrote and accusing me of fanboy behavior, specious reasons, cargo cult mentality, not making technical claims (talk about projection!), etc. I don’t why you have such a chip on your shoulder about memory safe languages but I would politely suggest that your current approach is not effective advocacy.
This is the kind of fallacies that dominate Rust fanboy's discourse.
You start off by mindlessly commenting on "constant stream of CVEs", but when you're faced with the reality that Rust also piles up CVEs then you start to try to move goalposts around. Odd how you switched from CVE talk to vague allusions of "perfection", as if now CVEs don't matter.
That's the problem with your type of fanaticism: you stop makint technical claims and instead resort to sweeping baseless accusations,as if that was a positive trait on a language and it's community.
> “Correctly” isn’t a weasel word, especially not in the context of describing how a program functions.
It is. There is no way around it.
> My comment about easier to learn was written in the context of reaching the level needed to reliably write safe code (...)
Again with the goalpost-moving/weasel word combo.
Rust is notoriously unfriendly to beginners and imposes an unparalleled learning curve. Around a quarter of new developers outright give up and quit over how unusable it is to them. This is acknowledged by the Rust community itself as demonstrated by the last annual Rust survey. There is no way around it. I don't know why anyone would try to waste time handwaving over this.
> For example, Android reports halving their code rollback rate and a significant reduction in the number of vulnerabilities by (...)
Here's the problem with this sort of specious reasoning. You are cherry-picking an example of how a project invested heavily in memory safety and therefore ended up lowering vulnerabilities. You ignore how much work was invested into processes and prioritizing specific types of problems. You instead decide to ignore everything and anything, and opt to go the simplistic path of pretending that the only step required to achieve these gains is onboarding a magical tool, as if nothing else was a factor.
Do you understand how this blend of cargo cult mentality is silly and unproductive?
I get it that you feel the need to promote a tool you like. That's fine. But if you had a case you wouldn't feel compelled to frame all your arguments on artificial scenarios you try to pin on all other tools, would you?