Hacker News Reader

Well... Rust has some safety features, but 1. so do others (Go is a Google project...), 2. it helps with some things and less with others. So yeah, if you have the resources, using Rust/Go/whatever and taking a security-first view is sensible. It's not a silver bullet, but it's probably helpful.

View on HN

Actually Rust _is_ a silver bullet, that's why it's so exciting.

System level programming memory safety was a dream for a long time.

Go is not capable of this at all, so it's out of question for replacing low level libraries.

Why isn't Go capable of system level programming memory safety?

It has a runtime with a GC. It's capable of safety, but not the low level performance/predictability of the Rust approach, and is also harder to embed than a Rust approach.

This is not a disqualifer for most use cases, but is for some.

It does not actually provide memory safety in concurrent scenarios, only for purely sequential code. Given the predicted use-case scenarios for Go, that's pretty much a truck-sized hole in the language's purported guarantees, especially in comparison with Rust.

Well the problem with go I believe as soon as you have to make high performance code you disable the garbage collector, which removes a lot of the safety features.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com