Wrong reasoning, friend:
Maybe C++ has rotted their brain to the point they can’t “get” the borrow checker.
Yeah, sure. Borrow checker fixes all. This is exactly the idiot attitude I am addressing.
And if I want a bug-free code, I will use same tool as ever: my brain
Well, yeah. Foolish people are tiring, no matter the side
Nah, it’s just that a whole lot of people, me included, are tired of foolish “but Rust is safe!!!1” propaganda-like shallow screams, like kids getting a new toy. I am ok when watching Linux distro battles, because that’s by definition child’s play and individual experience varies wildly among participants, but regarding programming languages I would rather see a long boring description of what is tackled how and why this is better than the “bad and buggy” alternative than this cheap shouting.
P.S. the critics does not go to you personally, yours is a good post, I thank you for it
Things are much simpler:
Want a bug free code - do bug free code. Spend time carefully evaluating every line and interaction
Want third-party code and safety - examine that code in the same way
Whatever you do, assume there is a bug in any software you use, so plan and organize accordingly
No amount of magic pills can substitute the above. So yeah, it is a skill issue. Also an issue of kids wining that there are bugs and they don’t feel safe, so they want to cling to magic pills instead of dealing with the reality
More like Rust has rotted someone’s brain. “Hey, I can’t code safely, so I will use this new toy that is supposed to make me”. This line of thought is OK as long as it does not get imposed on anything I do as a programmer
Right. So what do you want with me?
No, but human brain is the only thing that can define bug
Any programming language does