| You seem like a forthright person, but with or without metaphors, we're still talking past each other. My point about remote exploits, airplane crashes, and cops is not about me. Yes, public facing software needs to be careful, but (fun metaphor) that's like saying prostitutes should use condoms. Web servers, browsers, firewalls, and the like are built specifically to communicate with untrusted entities. That's some of the most promiscuous software out there, and yes it gets exploited. But most people don't need to use condoms with their wives, and nobody is going to exploit software a newbie wrote and runs on his home computer. Safety should not be the fundamental criteria for a newbie programmer to choose a language and learn how to write fibonacci or hello world. When they're ready to write nginx, then they should be careful. My point about the questionable productivity gain and safety was a reply to your estimate of the billions of dollars lost. If you're not more productive, and you aren't really safe, then you aren't going to save those billions. > What, you can't use that explicit separation of what is known safe and known unsafe to point out computational problems and ways they can be solved? I find that hard to believe. I didn't say anything like that. We're talking past each other. > Unless you think unsafe is Rust but "lesser, not really". It isn't. It's part of the language. (Metaphor time again) I've got a really safe bicycle. When the safety is on, children can't get hurt while riding it. If you care about the safety of the world's children, they should use my new safer bicycle. Oh, but you can't pedal it on paths I don't provide unless you disable the safety. Is my bike really that safe? > 1: https://www.exploit-db.com/remote/ I have no idea how many people compiled and ran a program today. It's probably millions. Bayes's theorem might be a useful way to normalize that long list you linked. I don't see a single program from a home programmer on that list. |
No one said that you said anything like that. Of course you didn't. But what you said necessarily implied that.
"We're talking past each other."
No, you willfully ignored and misrepresented all his points.
"Oh, but you can't pedal it on paths I don't provide unless you disable the safety."
That's a grossly dishonest misrepresentation the situation with Rust.