
How Rust Views Tradeoffs - 56quarters
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/rust-tradeoffs/
======
oconnor663
I feel like there's an underlying assumption/reality here that helps us:
Hardware is designed for programs that are maximally efficient but also safe
and correct. No one ever designs a new CPU instruction that's like "this
multiplies two numbers super fast, but only if you're willing to accept
undefined behavior 0.1% of the time." They only design hardware instructions
that are possible to use in a safe, correct program. And so it's possible for
a programming language to make progress on safety and correctness without
nessarily compromising performance. The "laws of physics" as expressed in the
way we build hardware allow for such a thing. That said, I wonder if other
folks know stories about hardware designs that were fundamentally incorrect,
and what happened to them?

