Yes, it’s because it keeps track on object lifetimes and data access when sharing objects, even across threads. It means that once things compiles a whole category of common and often difficult to debug errors are gone. It means much less time debugging and fewer issues once in the hands of the end user. There can still be bugs but it’s more about logical errors than difficult memory issues.
As a C++ dev for 20 years, I love Rust. Humans are fallible, even if endeavouring to use safe patterns. Might as well just let the compiler use some CPU cycles on that.
I think new projects in Rust make sense but my - uninformed - opinion is that we should be wary about porting old C/C++ software due to those other classes of bugs you mentioned. The logical type errors I see at work and in open source projects using memory safe languages can be fiendish in their own way.
Yes, it’s because it keeps track on object lifetimes and data access when sharing objects, even across threads. It means that once things compiles a whole category of common and often difficult to debug errors are gone. It means much less time debugging and fewer issues once in the hands of the end user. There can still be bugs but it’s more about logical errors than difficult memory issues.
As a C++ dev for 20 years, I love Rust. Humans are fallible, even if endeavouring to use safe patterns. Might as well just let the compiler use some CPU cycles on that.
I think new projects in Rust make sense but my - uninformed - opinion is that we should be wary about porting old C/C++ software due to those other classes of bugs you mentioned. The logical type errors I see at work and in open source projects using memory safe languages can be fiendish in their own way.