On 2026-03-31 20:25:25, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> 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.

To err is human, to really screw things requires a computer.