Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "I Hate Rust | Prime Reacts" video.
-
5
-
2
-
1
-
@lpprogrammingllc
See how funny this is?
You came here, randomly shitted on the language by saying they had "broken promises" by showing a compiler bug, and you cite Residual Entropy as your font, which I had watched the videos, and he seems to be very understandable on the problem, because he understands the difficulty of what it is in hands; now you are saying I'm on some kind of "rust advocate behavior" like this has ANY meaning whatsoever (spoiler: it don't). You say I'm "assuming bad faith" when "someone doesn't like what I like", and by assuming this, you are also assuming bad faith on me by thinking I'm doing this instead of having actual resons to believe so (and spoilers again: I have, and in my previous comment I cited some of them).
No, this is not a language-level bug, because this does not make sense at all, the language does not even have a formal specification to have "language-level bugs", the bug in question is a product of assumptions they needed to make when implementing the current trait solver and obviously it is not an intended behavior by any means (it is literally catched by MIRI, so it should not be an intended thing; <and also> the language, as you said, is <promising safety> in <safe code> it should imply by charity that this is not intended to pass as sound code, while it does because the verifications where not properly implemented in the compiler-level), so it is indeed a <compiler bug>. It is a compiler bug that cannot be easily fixed because doing so requires modifying many assumptions in the compiler, because this is a complex bug, but still a bug that is being fixed (and has already a fix in the new trait system), so calling it a "language-level bug" is just mean. You cited the bug report as a proof that it is a language-level bug and, for zero surprises, it does not imply that anywhere.
I'm open as well for proofs that this can be classified as a "language-level bug", but more than that, I'm more interested in know how this change anything to anyone interested in the language when the developers are already dedicating their work to fix this bug.
Yes, the bug reports are still marked as open because they are not yet in the stable language and because the new trait solver is not yet stablized, I also don't know when it will (but I've read in their roadmap for it that it will be ready for 2027), but it is being worked on, and as such is not in good faith to say they had "broken a promise" because of such a complex bug existing (a bug that has 0 records of being found in real codebases until now; a bug that can be catched with MIR which is something you should <already be using> for really ensuring your code has no detectable safety problems) that is <actively being worked on> (i.e. this is not a thing they "forgot" or "ignored").
As for this:
["Again, this is orthogonal to the real reason I will not use Rust. Which is the complete lack of trust I have in the entire Rust supply chain, because of people acting like you."]
You are free to think the bs you want to think, and to say people responding to your lies they are acting "rust advocates" (when in fact you where lying, you said it was "unlikely to be fixed without serious breaking changes", you had not even readed the material available on the problem to say that and you proved this on your posterior comment).
Either way, I'm not "rust advocate", my main language of daily use is not even Rust, it is C#, and I program in many languages, I'm not more "rust advocate" than I'm "truth advocate", and you are indeed acting in bad faith with your comments, you are being weird and shitting on things (you literally started this with your comment by citing something you DON'T understand, you literally pasted only a part of a function that <is not very unsafe> without the other part), this is not the behavior of someone who are really wanting to have a purposeful discussion over a topic.
1