No one has ever argued that it's impossible to write c code, but just because you haven't found those kinds of bugs in your code, doesn't mean that it isn't there. We're still finding 10+ year old bugs in Linux.
It's been around for roughly six or eight already, depending on how you count. Of course, pre-1.0 was a different thing, but still. Ten years is not that long a time.
(I still agree that results at that point will be more interesting then speculating today.)
> It's been around for roughly six or eight already, depending on how you count.
I don't think you get to play on both sides of that fence. Some of your team has been working on Rust for that long, but I doubt any code with sigils compiles, and I doubt there were many large projects using it then. I started my stopwatch at May 2015.
> Ten years is not that long a time.
Totally agree.
> I still agree that results at that point will be more interesting then speculating today.
Yeah that's why I said it depends. :) periodization is tough. 18 months, four years, six years, and 9ish years are all valid, depending on how. What I mean to say is that it's already been quite a while, and now that it's making its way into distros and required for building Firefox and all that, I think it has even more of a chance of sticking around for a long time, given that it was around for quite a while when it wasn't even a viable "real" language. I don't mean to insinuate that today's Rust is mega mature because those old Rusts exist.
Who claimed I haven't found these kinds of bugs in my code?
My response was to a commenter who, as far as I can tell, represents the mainstream Rust community's view: that it's impossible to write safe C or, worse, that infallibility is a reasonable standard to apply. The latter is especially vex-some from my point of view, because Rust is not infallible, I happen to find it (so far) much more pleasurable to use than either C or C++, and I would very much like to see it have broader adoption.
