From: rjh@cpax.org.uk   
      
   On 28/07/2025 16:16, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > Does this mean that the language is perfect, and will prevent   
   > all bugs?  No, of course not; it's not magic.  But this line of   
   > reasoning that says, "well, you can still have bugs, so what's   
   > the point?" inevitably ignores the relative rate of those bugs   
   > between languages, which does matter.  It's the same argument   
   > that says, "you can still die in a car crash, so we don't need   
   > seatbelts or airbags."  Yet all available data shows that those   
   > things_do_  in fact save lives.   
      
   Whilst you are unlikely ever to catch me within a light year of   
   Rust, I do agree with your substantive point - that amagicality   
   is not a good reason to reject a programming technology.   
      
   I must, however, take issue with your word 'all' in your last   
   sentence. To invalidate it only takes one death caused by a   
   seatbelt that prevents a wearer from escaping a fatal crash (eg   
   burning or drowning).   
      
   --   
   Richard Heathfield   
   Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk   
   "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999   
   Sig line 4 vacant - apply within   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)