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: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:30:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <106cvpj$gac$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me> <106aen9$cio$1@reader1.panix.com> <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:30:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="16716"; 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:16827

In article <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 29/07/2025 13:27, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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".

That is true, but irrelevant: the issue here is the definition
of "X".  "[T]hose things _do_ in fact save lives" is not the
same as "all lives are saved, and none are lost due to the
equipment."  I never said the latter, and it is not implied by
the former statement.  Conflating them is a logical error, but I
did acknowledge that the statement can reasonably be seen as
sufficiently imprecise that it should be revised, and did so.

>But I've made my point, so on that note I will underline my 
>acknowledgement that I'm being ++picky.

I fear I am, as well.

	- Dan C.