|
> I find the argument a little bit disingenuous after claiming rust is type safe (you can do the same kind of non type safe magic with the unsafe keyword). Rust is probably the most type safe language I’ve ever used, granted it’s not many, but definitely between Java, C, C++, JS, Python, Lisp, etc. If you put Rust in the same category because it has unsafe, you might as well just throw your hands up and say that no language, not a one is typesafe, with the exception of possibly Assembly, which practically treats everything as just a series of bits. There is a misconception that b/c Rust has unsafe it is proof that it is itself unsafe, but this devalues the entire point of having any form a safety in language. The language is typesafe, memory safe, and datarace safe, so long as you keep the guardrails on. Sometimes you take the guardrails away for very special reasons, but those are generally rare (unless you’re working with FFI, hardware, or low level concurrency). I have entire codebases of multiple thousands of lines in Rust without the need to use unsafe at all. |