you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

The thing about typing is that it is easy for a deterministic compiler to flag violations.

There are hundreds of other "best practices" that determinisitic compilers aren't able to flag. Even the almighty Rust language is suceptible to race conditions, deadlocks, and many potential crash conditions.

I'm an old C programmer, and Rust pisses me off when it won't let me do something that's demonstrably 100% safe. However, a lot of the things that Rust and other general practice rules forbid or advise against, should really be avoided when they get past a very simple application. What was "proven safe" quickly becomes unsafe when a later maintainer who doesn't understand the risks "extends" the code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Well this is why you have different levels of warnings. Some are just flat out errors, some are strong warnings, others are weak warnings. Of course, at the end, the programmer has to be the one to decide to follow the language server's diagnostics or not.

    As far as I understand, the whole draw of Rust is it's very opinionated in its safety. If you don't want that, Rust is just not for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 19 hours ago

    Rust is it’s very opinionated in its safety. If you don’t want that, Rust is just not for you.

    Yeah, for hand coding my own things, I find Rust offensive and needlessly rigid leading to unnecessary complexity - complexity being the mother of all bugs.

    For code written by our overseas contingent, and / or LLMs, Rust is at least a little comforting, and if anyone ever starts maintaining the code I have written (rare, so far, but increasing ever so slowly), I suppose having the maintenance done in Rust isn't a bad thing either.

  • source
  • parent