[samdoesnothing]

> Anybody who thought the simple action of rewriting things in Rust would eliminate all bugs was hopelessly naive.

Classic Motte and Bailey. Rust is often said "if it compiles it runs". When that is obviously not the case, Rust evangelicals claim nobody actually means that and that Rust just eliminates memory bugs. And when that isn't even true, they try to mischaracterize it as "all bugs" when, no, people are expecting it to eliminate all memory bugs because that's what Rust people claim.

[anon-3988]

> Classic Motte and Bailey. Rust is often said "if it compiles it runs".

That claims is overly broad, but its a huge, huge part of it. There's no amount of computer science or verification that can prevent a human from writing the wrong software or specification (let plus_a_b = a - b or why did you give me an orange when I wanted an apple). Unsafe Rust is so markedly different than safe default Rust. This is akin to claiming that C is buggy or broken because people write broken inline ASM. If C can't deal with broken inline ASM, then why bother with C?

[tialaramex]

Yeah. I spent many years getting paid to write C, these days I don't write C (even for myself) but I do write Rust.

I write bugs, because I'm human, and Rust's compiler sure does catch a lot more of my bugs than GCC used to when I was writing C all day.

Stronger typing a big part of why this happens. For example in C it's perfectly usual to use the "int" type for a file descriptor, a count of items in some container and a timeout (in seconds? milliseconds? who knows). We could do better, but we usually don't.

In idiomatic Rust everybody uses three distinct types OwnedFd, usize and Duration. As a result while arithmetic on ints must work in C, the Rust compiler knows that it's reasonable to add two Durations together, it's nonsense to add a Duration to a size, and all arithmetic is inappropriate for OwnedFd, further it's also not reasonable to multiply two Durations together, a Duration multiplied by an integer makes sense and the other way around likewise, but 5 seconds multiplied by 80 milliseconds is nonsense.

[AnIrishDuck]

> Classic Motte and Bailey.

For this to be a "classic motte and bailey" you will need to point us to instances where _the original poster_ suggested these (the "bailey", which you characterize as "rust eliminates all bugs") things.

It instead appears that you are attributing _other comments_ to the OP. This is not a fair argumentation technique, and could easily be turned against you to make any of your comments into a "classic motte and bailey".