It's a funny dunk on the language but I was hoping for some actual root cause analysis. It sounds like the change actually uncovered a pre-existing bug which was not (yet) causing a crash (but may have been silently overwriting memory). In that case, the root cause was the existing code's failure to use memory safely. There's not much point blaming a 50-year-old language, which was never designed with modern type safety but instead has features that allow deliberately throwing away safety to make low-level systems programming possible, for not having modern type safety. The generation of programmers who learned to use it as safely as possible (which I belong to) are getting old and cranky. We're now inclined to say that the person who wrote the pre-existing bug needed more experience. We'd all love to use Rust for new code but there's an awful lot of legacy C code that needs fixing.
No comments yet.