Hacker News Reader

Comment by likeabbas | Hacker News Reader

I think the incentive to write compiler verifiable Rust would be the same as safe Rust, but with less fear for the situations where you do need to bypass the borrow checker such as with cyclical references in graphs (currently doing this right now by re-writing a basic NN in Rust). Even the standard library uses unsafe for certain situations.

View on HN

> with less fear for the situations where you do need to bypass the borrow checker such as with cyclical references in graphs

That's a pretty tricky thing to get right, and with the consequence for getting it wrong being UB, at least a little fear is warranted.

`compiler_unverifiable` isn't risky enough for you?

It doesn't have the same connotations as `unsafe`.

But it’s the true definition being stated. Unsafe is subjective, compiler unverifiable isn’t

So?

This is like applications adding artificial delay to operations so users aren't surprised they complete so quickly.

User understanding is more important than definitional correctness.

I don’t understand why you want people to be afraid of code though. It’s just code. We don’t need a scary connotation to make people think they should shoot for completely compiler verifiable rust in every line they can write.

Users who don't even know the meaning of "unsafe" almost definitely shouldn't be writing unsafe code.

That's an elitist mindset

It's a user-friendly mindset.

User-friendly is subjective. I think it would be more user friendly to tell users "hey, this code you're writing can't be verified by the compiler" rather than "hey, this code is unsafe. beware"

What it boils down to is "Users who don't even know what a trigger is should be discouraged from handling footguns". Sure, if you don't have the resources to learn about the subject, you might miss out on some fun, but it's much more likely that you'd blow off your foot instead, which would be much less fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com