Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?
Date	2025-08-02 18:41 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<106lf4d$15pv5$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me> <106aen9$cio$1@reader1.panix.com> <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me> <106cvpj$gac$1@reader1.panix.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 30/07/2025 13:30, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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.
> 

Without taking any sides here, it is easy to make the mistake of 
thinking that logical rules can apply to sets of propositions in the 
same way as they apply to propositions.  This leads to the famous Cheese 
Sandwich Theorem:

1. Nothing is better than complete happiness.
2. A cheese sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, a cheese sandwich is better than complete happiness.

Time for lunch :-)

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 07:46 -0400
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-10 07:14 -0700
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-10 16:42 +0000
      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-18 02:51 -0400
        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-28 11:37 +0000
          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-28 13:50 +0200
            Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-28 15:16 +0000
              Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-28 17:59 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-28 22:18 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-29 10:18 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-29 12:16 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-07-29 17:37 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-29 18:24 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-29 19:14 +0200
                Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-29 18:27 +0000
                Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-08-02 17:47 +0200
                Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-04 22:33 +0000
                Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-08-06 18:38 +0200
                Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-08 03:30 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-30 19:08 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:00 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-30 20:34 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:40 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-30 20:51 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:53 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-09-05 10:59 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-08-03 17:55 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-08-03 18:17 +0200
              Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-29 06:24 +0100
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-29 12:27 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-30 07:44 +0100
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 11:30 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-30 16:51 +0100
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:00 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-08-02 18:41 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-04 22:34 +0000
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 17:35 -0400

csiph-web