[lilly-lizard]

for me personally, the trade off between me writing in memory safe rust vs comparably "powerful" C++ is coding speed. I think C++ is a mess and have been using rust for my personal projects for the past 2 years but I still feel like I code faster in C++ because I don't lose time wrestling with the borrow checker. Rust has some fantastic design decisions and features (despite it being a relatively immature language) so I've always thought it was weird how people discuss the trade-off as safety vs powerfulness

[seanhunter]

I wonder how it will pan out in aggregate when you amortise the productivity of sprinting to produce something vs crawling to fix the problems. In C++ although you are not wrestling with a borrow checker you do find yourself going fast down deep dark tunnels that take ages to get out of. In rust it might be you move instantaneously slower but faster on average but it might take time to gather that data.

For exampe I once had to help someone debug some C++ memory leaks in a vast codebase in jobs that took hours for each valgrind run. It was two of us for two weeks to eventually find and fix the problem and the fix was maybe (from memory) 10 lines tops. Not exactly productive. But the person writing the couple of hundred lines that created the problem probably felt quite productive while doing so.

[jasfi]

I find Nim to have excellent trade-offs for writing system software. It's so much easier to write than Rust, but is also safe.

[oneshtein]

C++ has ASAN, valgring, and other checkers to wrestle with.