On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 07:49:13PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> marc said on Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:07:06 +0200
>
> >Hello Steve
> >
> >> We could debate the benefits and costs of adherence to this degree of
> >> diligence, but the fact is that a lot of bad code gets written,
> >> damaging society and the programming profession. At some time in the
> >> future you, a diligent programmer, might find yourself hamstrung by
> >> actual laws requiring you to jump through all sorts of hoops (or pay
> >> lots of bribes) to be allowed to ply your trade.
> >
> >I think you have made this argument before, that we require safe
> >languages (or "safer languages") lest the state imposes a
> >license to program. I am not sure...
> >
> >I think the opposite can be argued too: That unsafe languages
> >are useful, so that the powerful can't (de facto, technically) prevent
> >you from rooting your device to to run your own code, however
> >rubbish, and even if that is against the law, or the eula.
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoooooaaaaa, I didn't mean to imply that C should be
> banned. Or assembler. Or hex/binary machine code. Over my dead body.
> All I said is that Rust is useful in situations in which you want the
> compiler to help you be careful.
>
> The reason I brought up the whole government thing was because of folks
> claiming we don't need Rust because the programmer should be careful
> and know all the ways a bad guy can exploit their code. In other words,
> turn it into a "blame the programmer" type deal. That's nice, and
> that's Utopian, but in real life some programmers are not careful,

Even good, careful programmers make occasional mistakes.

> and
> Rust is a nice way to put railings on their stairs so they don't fall
> off.

--- hendrik