From: rjh@cpax.org.uk
On 29/07/2025 13:27, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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.
Well, yes it does. "All data shows X" most definitely implies
that "no data shows not-X".
But I've made my point, so on that note I will underline my
acknowledgement that I'm being ++picky.
--
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)
|
