Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:16:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <106ae3k$i4b$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <10686pv$24rjd$5@dont-email.me> <1068t09$7a8$1@reader1.panix.com> <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:16:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="18571"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:16820

In article <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>,
Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>On 29/07/2025 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> I'm not terribly interested in marketing slogans, to be honest.
>> "Safety" in this case has a very well-defined meaning, which may
>> not be the same as yours.
>
>Maybe you don't realise it, but you are *only* repeating
>the fake history and the fraudulent marketing slogans.

Unsupported assertions coupled with a lack of engagement with
the material points under discussion are not persuasive.  If you
disagree with any of my statements, you can engage with the
arguments in good faith and provide data.

Or, if you prefer, how about a comparative study of a decently
large program, one version written in C, and the other in Rust?
Compare: https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64 and
https://github.com/mit-pdos/xv6-public

Otherwise, I suggest that you buckle up when you get behind the
wheel.

	- Dan C.