[aw1621107]

> Examples:

GP isn't asking for examples of just anyone making that statement. They're asking for examples of Rust making that promise. Something from the docs or the like.

> Some people claim that the quote is hyperbolic because it only covers memory errors. But this bug is a memory error, so ...

It's a memory error involving unsafe code, so it would be out of scope for whatever promises Rust may or may not have made anyways.

[qcnguy]

Rust can't make a promise, only people can. I think it was clear what samdoesnothing meant.

[aw1621107]

I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret "Language X promises Y" as tantamount to said promise appearing in Language X's definition and/or docs. Claims from devs in their official capacities are likely to count as well.

On the other hand, what effectively random third parties say doesn't matter all that much IMO when it comes to these things because what they think a language promises has little to no bearing on what the language actually promises. If I find a bunch of randos claiming Rust promises to give me a unicorn for my birthday it seems rather nonsensical to turn around and criticize Rust for not actually giving me a unicorn in my birthday.

[elpataka]

What docs or language definition are you even talking about? Rust doesn't have an official spec. How can Rust make such a promise if it does not even have an official spec or documentation where it can make it?

As the other commenter said, said promises are made by people. The problem comes from the fact that these people are not always just random internet strangers who don't know a thing about programming who say random stuff that crosses their mind. Sometimes, it comes from the authority of the Rust compiler developers themselves (who apparently also don't seem to know anything about programming, considering that they have made such retarded claims...).

Just look at any talk given by them, or any post made on any forum, or, most importantly, the many instances where such statements are made on the Rust book (which is not an official spec for the language, but it is the closest thing we have, ignoring Ferrocene's spec because rustc is not based on that...).

Also most public speakers who were extremely vocal about Rust and made cookie cutter and easy to digest content for beginner programmers were dead set on selling the language through empty promises and some weird glorification of its capabilities, bordering the behaviour of a cult. Cue in, No Boilerplate, Let's Get Rusty, etc... all of these people have said many times the "if it compiles, you know it works!" statement, which is very popular among Rust programmers, and we all know that that is not true, because anyone with any experience with Rust will be able to tell you that with unsafe Rust, you can shoot yourself in the foot.

Stop selling smoke, this is a programming language, why must it also be a cult?

[aw1621107]

> What docs or language definition are you even talking about?

I thought it was pretty clear from context that I was speaking more generally there. Suppose not.

> As the other commenter said, said promises are made by people.

Sure, but when the developers of a language collectively agree that the language they all work on should make a particular promise, I think it's reasonable to condense that to <language> promises <X> rather than writing everything out over and over.

It's kind of similar to how one might say "Company X promises Y" rather than "The management of company X promises Y". It's a convenient shorthand that I think is reasonably understood by most people.

> Rust doesn't have an official spec. How can Rust make such a promise if it does not even have an official spec or documentation where it can make it?

Rust does have official documentation [0]?

And that being said, I don't think a language needs an official spec to make a promise. As far as most programmers are concerned, I'm pretty sure the promises made in language/implementation docs are good enough. K&R was generally good enough for most C programmers before C had a spec, after all (and arguably even after to some extent) :P

> Sometimes, it comes from the authority of the Rust compiler developers themselves []. Just look at any talk given by them, or any post made on any forum

Does it? At least from what I can remember off the top of my head I don't think I've seen such claim from official Rust devs speaking in their capacity as such. Perhaps you might have links to such?

> or, most importantly, the many instances where such statements are made on the Rust book

Are there "many instances"? `rg 'compiles.*it.*works` turns up precisely one (1) instance of that statement in the Rust book [1] and slight variations on that regex don't turn up any additional instances. What the book says portrays that statement in a slightly different light than you seem to think:

> Note: A saying you might hear about languages with strict compilers, such as Haskell and Rust, is “If the code compiles, it works.” But this saying is not universally true. Our project compiles, but it does absolutely nothing! If we were building a real, complete project, this would be a good time to start writing unit tests to check that the code compiles and has the behavior we want.

I wouldn't claim that my search was comprehensive, though, and I also can't claim to know the Rust Book from cover to cover. Maybe you know some spots I missed?

> which is not an official spec for the language, but it is the closest thing we have

I believe that particular honor actually goes to the Rust Reference [2].

> Also most public speakers who were extremely vocal about Rust and made cookie cutter and easy to digest content for beginner programmers were dead set on selling the language through empty promises and some weird glorification of its capabilities, bordering the behaviour of a cult. Cue in, No Boilerplate, Let's Get Rusty, etc... all of these people have said many times the "if it compiles, you know it works!" statement, which is very popular among Rust programmers, and we all know that that is not true, because anyone with any experience with Rust will be able to tell you that with unsafe Rust, you can shoot yourself in the foot.

Again, I don't think what unrelated third parties say has any bearing on what a language actually promises. Rust doesn't owe me a unicorn on my birthday no matter how many enthusiastic public speakers I find.

[0]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/book/blob/39aeceaa3aeab845bc451...

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/index.html