| ▲ | pron an hour ago | |
I reach for a low-level language only when I want low-level control over what operations happen and when, what memory is used and when etc.. At present, no language offers me this control and safety at the same time. With Rust, when I need such control (which is always, otherwise I would use a higher-level language), I need to give up safety, anyway, at which point I have no safety and the complexity of a language that offers safety. So right now, when we want control, we need to give up some safety, but weaker things are still helpful. Also, in low-level code, the problem of "I might forget to do something" sometimes clashes with the problem of "I need to see exactly what operations are done and where". Various kinds of implicitness help with the former at the expense of the latter. I'm not saying this is universally better than other approaches, but many people who do serious low-level programming would prefer this. | ||
| ▲ | pjmlp an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
Except the point that Zig should do better than Object Pascal, Modula-2, with solutions already available on Insure++ and friends for use after free, 30 years ago. | ||
| ▲ | duped an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
What are some examples of things you "always" need that require unsafe Rust? | ||