[anotherhue]

Safety is good.

[userbinator]

Unless it means sacrificing freedom.

[mlindner]

Providing the default of additional safety with the ability to opt out that safety is pro-freedom.

[kupopuffs]

freedom to shoot yourself in the foot?

[tcfhgj]

how much?

[lomase]

That is why most of the world has not been using c/c++ for decades.

[scuff3d]

I'm not on the Rust bandwagon, but statements like this make absolutely no sense.

A lot of software was written in C and C++ because they were the only option for decades. If you couldn't afford garbage collection and needed direct control of the hardware there wasn't much of a choice. Had their been "safer" alternatives, it's possible those would have been used instead.

It's only been in the last few years we've seen languages emerge that could actually replace C/C++ with projects like Rust, Zig and Odin. I'm not saying they will, or they should, but just that we actually have alternatives now.

[vardump]

That's not true when the topic is operating system kernels.

[wat10000]

Most of the world uses other languages because they’re easier, not because they’re safer.

[lawn]

People didn't use seatbelts before seatbelts were invented.

[bogantech]

Most software development these days is JS/Typescript slop, popular doesn't equal better