Thread 106282907

@grok is this true?

>>106282907 (OP)
No, because Rust needs to split into safe and unsafe. No Rust code can ever have that level of performance and that level of safety together.

>>106282907 (OP)
When it gets around to focusing on system programming, mojo will turn rust into an embarrassing legacy niche.

no and you are a gay ass tonguing nigger

>>106282951
@cock is this true?

>>106282907 (OP)
Rust can be either safe or performant, not both at the same time

>>106282907 (OP)
It becomes true if you relabel the axes "retardation" and "homosexuality."

>>106282907 (OP)
When three letter agencies tells you something is unsafe (C++) that means it's safer than you think. FYI they were pushing it soo hard everywhere I wanna know the opposite. Why C++ is such thorn in theirs side?

>>106283596
>When three letter agencies tells you something is unsafe (C++) that means it's safer than you think.
I believe it.

>>106282951
Lies. All the checks are at compile time

>>106282907 (OP)
>is this true?

No, Rust isn't safer than Haskell, Java, Go, and ML, all of them which have automatic memory management and thus safe allocation.

Java and Go aren't as safe as ML and Haskell which have a very advanced type system than can help you catch business logic errors at compile time. Rust is a little bit behind but also has a far more advanced type system than Go and Java.

>>106283267
>It becomes true if you relabel the axes "retardation" and "homosexuality."

based. Fixed it for you.

>>106284089
What is an unsafe allocation?

>>106284272
am memeroy leewak

>>106284288
Are you saying java and go cannot leak memory?

>>106282907 (OP)
C++ would appear in like 7 places on this graph simultaneously. Most C++ I see in production isn't very performant, and makes excessive use of memory automation structures.

kek

>>106284354
its what the commitee made of c++...

>>106282907 (OP)
Why do people care so much about safety? The borrow checker isn't some panacea that somehow will make you the best programmer in the world. The working of the borrow checker is so primitive you could be your own borrow checker by explicitly declaring where a pointer is freed (either through the name of the variable, the function, etc.)

>>106284441
> Why do people care so much about safety?
Some of us have jobs where security vulnerabilities cost actual money.

> The borrow checker isn't some panacea
Yes.

> The working of the borrow checker ... explicitly declaring where a pointer is freed
The point of the borrow checker isn't take make sure you free your memory. In fact, leaking memory is completely safe, there is even a function in the standard library specifically to do it: std::mem::forget. Basic linting for unfreed pointers is something compiles have been able to do for 30+ years and isn't the motivation for the borrow checker.

>>106284166
Where is FORTH?

>>106284623
have you tried being a better programmer instead of using the tinkering toy with gaurd rails

>>106283812
Debunked by pic related.
Rust is javascript tier garbage.

>>106284898
> instead of using the tinkering toy with gaurd rails
You mean like C? Imagine even having variables. Is adding to a stack pointer really so hard that you need an entire language to do it for you? Does the poor little baby really need for loops?

Rust thrashes your CPU's branch predictor. Imagine running this every time you write to an array.

I've never once needed smart pointers in C++. The same brainlets that need them, think rust has a purpose. If RAII doesn't work for you then skill issue

>>106285097
>>106285090
>>106284441
this

>>106282907 (OP)
functional programming is not about safety, it's about purity and abstraction
although its abstraction does imply safety because the compiler does all the work for you instead of you having to define each step to take in your program

>>106282907 (OP)
my nigga all it's doing is flinging bytes around how is 'safety' an issue?

>>106284166
>good languages is just spamming ((((((())))))) everywhere

Rust's idea of safety is runtime crash...

>>106283596
It's unsafe because it depends on the coder doing his due diligence to prevent memory exploits.

>>106282907 (OP)
Even the designers of Haskell agreed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSmkqocn0oQ

>>106285090
If you've ever tried actually using it you'd know this. It's typechecked node.js the way go is typechecked Python.