On 28 Mar 2014, at 15:01, Huon Wilson <dbau...@gmail.com> wrote: > [..] And anyway, as Daniel and Patrick say, if you don't need the utmost > safety, then Rust isn't the language you're looking for: things like C++ work > well in the speed department, at the cost of safety
Yes, it seems that Rust isn't the language for those people. But what I'm saying is that Rust *could* be the language for those people *too*, if it wanted to. Even those people who don't need the utmost safety might take it if it's deemed not too big of a hindrance on performance. But it's probably impossible to determine beforehand whether the performance hit caused by safety will be within acceptable limits or not. Which is why those people need to be able to make that decision after the (safe) code has been written and make the switch quickly to raw performance with a compiler flag.
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
