top | item 45975437

(no title)

abigailphoebe | 3 months ago

blaming the language is not the way to approach this. if an engineer writes bad code that’s the engineers fault, not the languages.

this was bad code that should have never hit production, it is not a rust language issue.

discuss

order

echelon|3 months ago

No. Don't say "you're holding it wrong". The language says "safe" on the tin. It advertises safety. This shouldn't be possible.

This is a null pointer. In Rust.

Unwrap needs to die. We should all fight to remove it.

aw1621107|3 months ago

> The language says "safe" on the tin. It advertises safety.

Rust advertises memory safety (and other closely related things, like no UB, data race safety, etc.). I don't think it's made any promises about hard guarantees of other kinds of safety.

dafelst|3 months ago

panics are safe, what are you talking about? It is nothing like a null pointer.

abigailphoebe|3 months ago

you either misunderstand the rust ethos or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

safe refers to memory safety.

once again, if you write bad code, that’s your fault, not the languages. this is a feature of rust that was used incorrectly.