D enters Tiobe top 20
newshound2 at digitalmars.com
Fri Nov 8 03:43:56 UTC 2019
On 11/7/2019 7:34 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 November 2019 at 09:41:05 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 07.11.19 08:34, drug wrote:
>>> On 11/7/19 3:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, as I also promote the safe/unsafe
>>>> code dichotomy.
>>> And I'm totally agree to you. That's the good engineering approach. But the
>>> Rust community is overselling Rust safety and this confuses me at least.
> "... Any realistic languages targeting this domain in the future will encounter
> the same problem ..."
> I underline _realistic_ ... Sorry Walter, I'm all with Timon on that.
I don't see anything on that site that contradicts what I wrote. In particular:
"Rust's core type system prohibits the aliasing of mutable state, but this is
too restrictive for implementing some low-level data structures. Consequently,
Rust's standard libraries make widespread internal use of "unsafe" blocks, which
enable them to opt out of the type system when necessary. The hope is that such
"unsafe" code is properly encapsulated, so that Rust's language-level safety
guarantees are preserved. But due to Rust's reliance on a weak memory model of
concurrency, along with its bleeding-edge type system, verifying that Rust and
its libraries are actually safe will require fundamental advances to the state
of the art."
is saying the same thing.
More information about the Digitalmars-d