> A power saw is dangerous; but I'm not going back thanks.
And now we have power saws that immediately stop when they encounter flesh. Obviously, disciplined users never had to worry about that system, otherwise we would have had a bunch of people missing fingers... like my wood shop teacher in high school. :/
> And nothing to say about the performance cost of these infallible tools? They are not free.
People have brought this up a few times, but I've never gotten an explanation that makes sense. My understanding is that Rust does most of its protections in the compile stage, so while not free, they are a small up-front cost at the compile stage, plus an indeterminate cost at the development stage in possible more complex reasoning about the code, which then pays off over the lifetime of the application. While not free, that's definitely a trade-off that seems to make sense to me.
Or are you talking about some other cost? Can you explain where I'm not understanding your point?
And now we have power saws that immediately stop when they encounter flesh. Obviously, disciplined users never had to worry about that system, otherwise we would have had a bunch of people missing fingers... like my wood shop teacher in high school. :/
> And nothing to say about the performance cost of these infallible tools? They are not free.
People have brought this up a few times, but I've never gotten an explanation that makes sense. My understanding is that Rust does most of its protections in the compile stage, so while not free, they are a small up-front cost at the compile stage, plus an indeterminate cost at the development stage in possible more complex reasoning about the code, which then pays off over the lifetime of the application. While not free, that's definitely a trade-off that seems to make sense to me.
Or are you talking about some other cost? Can you explain where I'm not understanding your point?