[eternalban]

> I think the difficulty in Rust lies in that it will enforce correctness. Competing languages are less strict about that, especially when it comes to threading.

Enforcing correctness at compile time is not the only way to insure correctness.

Some do enjoy solving language puzzles (so choose Rust) and some prefer thinking before coding and prefer solving design puzzles. I personally prefer that latter, as the 'hard' problems are intellectually interesting, solving them is satisfying, and over the years the design lessons build upon each other. At which point you don't need a Mommy Dearest Compiler to ensure correctness.

[ModernMech]

This is the "don't do anything wrong" model of software development, and while it works well for some, we have enough experience as an industry to know it doesn't scale.

Crucially, it's hard to prove whether or not you've actually solved whatever design issue you wanted to overcome. Such a proof usually would entail some sort of analysis of the program as written (because it may actually differ from your design). To perform this analysis, you may want to annotate the lifetimes of the various objects as they are declared, so that you can track (for example) that some memory is not accessed after it is freed, or any other number of issues.

This lifetime analysis as you would imagine can be very tedious and complicated, so you would perhaps want to automate the process. And that's essentially why Rust's borrow checker exists. It's almost inevitable that it should exist imo. Seems completely obvious after the fact.

[nyanpasu64]

To quote threatofrain:

> All type systems will have meaningful and true propositions which are apparent to the programmer but not yet to the language team... Some of what the author is complaining about matches my conversations with people who aspire to be Rust library authors — that you're often trying to hijack the type system because you <do> actually know better.

Rust catches some problems (like data races and use-after-free). Safe Rust translated into correct C++ is still correct. Rust also fails to catch some problems (like preventing out-of-bounds indexing at compile time); admittedly idiomatic C++ fails to catch bounds errors at runtime. And when encountering problems that Safe Rust cannot solve (like the generic lifetime quagmires in the original post), C++ often makes it possible (and easier than esoteric programming languages like Unsafe Rust) to solve the problem correctly in the current situation; though admittedly, ensuring you haven't missed any UB cases, and validating that your assumptions don't break later on, is difficult (Unsafe Rust is better at marking unsafe code for future readers).

[Ygg2]

> Enforcing correctness at compile time is not the only way to insure correctness.

> some prefer thinking before coding and prefer solving design puzzles

Yeah, you just need to guarantee that person working on it, considered all edge cases, had uninterrupted time to think, thought about how the edge cases interact, didn't make a single mistake, wasn't sleepy, under influence of substances, and perfectly wrote it into the program without a single semantic error (off by 1).

Easy.

That's why I code in Malbolge Lisp CodeGen that outputs Brainfuck.

[jeroenhd]

If you can solve all your problems by thinking before writing code then you will never see a compiler error, unless you see a compiler bug. If you're solving your problems beforehand by thinking about them but end up solving language puzzles, you clearly haven't thought enough.

[orangetuba]

If the benchmark is "projects that are known for idiomatic C", such as Redis or Sqlite, we know that even they introduce memory corruption errors that lead to vulnerabilities every now and then. You're not better than them.

[blub]

And yet those C and C++ projects continue to be very popular and successful. :-)