I think that legitimate real world issues in rust code should be talked about more often. Right now the language enjoys a reputation that is essentiaöly misleading marketing. It isn't possible to create a programing language that doesn't allow bugs to happen (even with formal verification you can still prove correctness based on a wrong set of assumptions). This weird, kind of religious belief that rust leads to magically completely bug free programs needs to be countered and brought in touch with reality IMO.

▲

jeroenhd 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nobody believes Rust programs are but free, though. Rust never promised that. It doesn't even promise memory safety, it only promises memory safety if you restrict yourself to safe APIs which simply isn't always possible.

▲

Galanwe 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> it only promises memory safety if you restrict yourself to safe APIs which simply isn't always possible.

Less than that actually, considering Rust has its own definition of what "safe" means.

	▲	user_of_the_wek 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, the Dwarf Fortress approach :) https://dwarffortresswiki.org/DF2014:Fun&redirect=no

▲

testdelacc1 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it possible you’ve misunderstood what Rust promises?

> It isn't possible to create a programing language that doesn't allow bugs to happen

Yes, that’s true. No one doubts this. Except you seem to think that Rust promises no bugs at all? I don’t know where you got this impression from, but it is incorrect.

Rust promises that certain kinds of bugs like use-after-free are much, much less likely. It eliminates some kinds of bugs, not all bugs altogether. It’s possible that you’ve read the claim on kinds of bugs, and misinterpreted it as all bugs.

I’ve had this conversation before, and it usually ends like https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

	▲	adrian_b 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		"Rust" obviously does not promise that. On the other hand, there are too many less-experienced Rust fans who do claim that "Rust" promises this and that any project that does not use Rust is doomed and that any of the existing decades-old software projects should be rewritten in Rust to decrease the chances that they may have bugs. What is described in TFA is not surprising at all, because it is exactly what has been predicted about this and other similar projects. Anyone who desires to rewrite in Rust any old project, should certainly do it. It will be at least a good learning experience and whenever an ancient project is rewritten from scratch, the current knowledge should enable the creation of something better than the original. Nonetheless, the rewriters should never claim that what they have just produced has currently less bugs than the original, because neither they nor Rust can guarantee this, but only a long experience with using the rewritten application. Such rewritten software packages should remain for years as optional alternatives to the originals. Any aggressive push to substitute the originals immediately is just stupid (and yes, I have seen people trying to promote this).