From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Richard Heathfield   wrote:   
   >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.   
      
   Agreed.   
      
   >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).   
      
   I can see why you might interpret it that way, but I'm not sure   
   your conclusion actually follows from my statement.  "All data   
   shows that those things _do_ in fact save lives" doesn't imply   
   that no lives are lost, even when restraint harnesses, flash   
   suits, and so on are used.  Nor does it imply that no one ever   
   died because, say, the restraint harness resulted in suspension   
   trauma or something.  Rather, taken in context, it simply means   
   that when used, more lives are saved relative to when not used.   
   "It always rains on Tuesday" doesn't say anything at all about   
   whether it rains on Wednesday or not.   
      
   Regardless, clearly there is some ambiguity here, so a tighter   
   statement is warranted.  How about, "available data shows that   
   with proper use of restraint harnesses and flash suits, drivers   
   survive more crashes than when those things are not used." ?   
      
   Similarly, available data shows that programs written in the   
   safe subset of Rust have significantly lower memory-related   
   defect rates than those same programs written in C.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)