Damn this person's obviously is so bitter towards Rust... I wonder why he's so obsessed with it?<p>I mean, if they really care about software correctness, I wonder why take a very discutibile position and say that "safety doesn't matter if you don't use the correct process". Yeah, I mean, having some guardrails is better than none, right? If they really cared about correctness, they would really strive to put all the possible guardrails in place, wouldn't they? Maybe they are bitter because their fav language is not as popular as the other?<p>But there are so many languages, I wonder why picking on Rust specifically.
I don't get it. Are we reading the same article? This article is so generic that it reads like vacuous truth to me. But I don't see their bitterness towards Rust (or anything, really. It's just vacuous.) from it. Is this person a famous anti-rust'er or something?
But it links to this post<p><a href="https://joshlf.com/posts/memory-safety-life-and-death/" rel="nofollow">https://joshlf.com/posts/memory-safety-life-and-death/</a><p>Under a "it doesn't matter it's memory-safe if..."
> It doesn’t matter that the language you use is memory-safe<p>> nobody can trick me into mistaking lesser stars for my true destination<p>The author seems to be in some level of denial around compile-time safety checks. They're right that runtime safety errors are an issue, but it feels wrong to discount compile time checkers when it can save a lot of yak shaving.
the piece didn't really seem very targeted at Rust as much as it's targeted at projects claiming to be secure just because they're written in Rust
from his about page: "I'm VP of Community at the Zig Software Foundation"<p>EDIT: doesn't really answer your question. Just reminds me of a good ol' flamewar.
> Damn this person's obviously is so bitter towards Rust<p>What makes you think that?<p>> I wonder why picking on Rust specifically.<p>I did not see that. What did I miss?