[pjc50]

> So unlike a few `unsafe` in a safe Rust, I want something like a few "safe" in an ambient "unsafe" C dialect. But I'm not saying "unsafe" is good or bad, I'm saying that "don't talk about unsafe vs safe", it's C itself, you wouldn't say anything is "safe" or "unsafe" in C.

Eh?

The critical criterion is "does your language make it difficult to write accidental RCEs". There's huge resistance to changing language at all, as we can see from the kernel mailing lists, so in order to go through the huge social pain of encouraging people to use a different language it's got to offer real and significant benefits.

Lifetimes are a solution to memory leaks and use-after free. Other solutions may exist.

Generics: Go tried to resist generics. It was a mistake. You need to be able to do Container<T> somehow. Do you have an opinion on the dotnet version of generics?

(You mention Ceph: every time I read about it I'm impressed, in that it seems an excellent solution to distributed filesystems, and yet I don't see it mentioned all that often. I'm glad it's survived)

[anqurvanillapy]

> Offer real and significant benefits.

Yeah! The criterion is just there like you said.

> Do you have an opinion on the dotnet version of generics?

I'm not familiar with dotnet languages, but I have much experience implementing generics, especially how to avoid getting the poor C++ templates. Also, I believe traits (not that of C++) and typeclasses (Rust/Haskell) are definitely needed, and it's already proven too, to pair with the generics feature.

> Ceph.

My former job was to write a distributed object storage in Go and it was heavily inspired by Ceph. But subset of the design could make much benefits for a smaller company, since the initial idea to write a new one was from the pain of doing rebalancing in Ceph... oh you want to know the solution? Manual partitioning and migration by our SRE/Ops team lol. It's unexpectedly effective.