*Under the assumption that you are maximizing both. I often hear complaints that Rust's semantics actually haven't maximized ergonomics, even factoring in the added difficulty it faces in pursuit of safety.

It's totally possible languages as ergonomic as Rust can be more safe, just because Rust isn't perfect or even has some notable, partially subjective, design flaws.

▲

aw1621107 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Under the assumption that you are maximizing both.

I'm not sure that changes anything about my comment? GC'd languages can give you safety and* ergonomics, no need to trade off one for the other. Obviously doing so requires tradeoffs of their own, but such additional criteria were not mentioned in the comment I originally replied to.

> I often hear complaints that Rust's semantics actually haven't maximized ergonomics, even factoring in the added difficulty it faces in pursuit of safety.

Well yes, that's factually true. I don't think anyone can disagree that there aren't places where Rust can further improve ergonomics (e.g., partial borrows). And that's not even taking into account places where Rust intentionally made things less ergonomic (around raw pointers IIRC, though I think there's some discussion about changing that).

> It's totally possible languages as ergonomic as Rust can be more safe

It's definitely possible (see above about GC'd languages). There are just other tradeoffs that need to be made that aren't on the ergonomics <-> safety axis.

▲

mattwilsonn888 3 days ago | parent [-]

Your earlier point that languages exist that are safer than Rust but not less ergonomic is irrelevant - that's the point I made.

One can fail, or artificially make a language less ergonomic and that doesn't mean that fixing that somehow has an effect on the safety tradeoff.

So obviously it is when safety and ergonomics are each already maximized that pushing one or the other results in a tradeoff. It's like saying removing weight from a car isn't a tradeoff because the weight was bricks in the trunk.

Anyways I was holding performance constant in all of this because the underlying assumption of Rust and Zig and Odin and C is that performance will make no sacrifices.

	▲	aw1621107 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> that's the point I made. That's not the way I read your original comment. When you said "it's a universal tradeoff, that is: Safety is less ergonomic", to me the implication is that gaining safety must result in losing ergonomics and vice versa. The existence of languages that are as safe/safer than Rust and more ergonomic than Rust would seem to be a natural counterexample since they have gained safety over Zig/C/C++ and haven't (necessarily, depending on the exact language) sacrificed ergonomics to do so. > One can fail, or artificially make a language less ergonomic and that doesn't mean that fixing that somehow has an effect on the safety tradeoff. To be honest that case didn't even cross my mind when I wrote my original comment. I was assuming we were working at the appropriate Pareto frontier. > So obviously it is when safety and ergonomics are each already maximized that pushing one or the other results in a tradeoff. Assuming no other relevant axes are available, sure. > Anyways I was holding performance constant in all of this because the underlying assumption of Rust and Zig and Odin and C is that performance will make no sacrifices. Sure. Might have been nice to include that assumption in your original comment, but even then I'm not sure it's too wise to ignore the performance axis completely due to the existence of safe implementations of otherwise "unsafe" languages (e.g., Zig's ReleaseSafe, GCs for C like Fil-C, etc.) that trade off performance for safety instead of ergonomics.