I would just like to interject that this conversation has been blowing my inbox up all morning and seems to be going absolutely nowhere. The people on both sides of this issue have stated their arguments exhaustively, and I neither believe that the Rust developers would ever introduce a flag that disables such a wide-reaching safety features, nor that the advocates of such a flag will understand why anytime this month.
I would therefore recommend that all participants cease sending messages to this thread, so that other discussions can continue in peace. Thanks, Matthew Frazier On Mar 28, 2014 9:35 AM, "Tommi" <rusty.ga...@icloud.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
