Had to chime in on the first of the named "principles" of the language, because it makes a good example of what I think is wrong with the Rust community:
> “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
This isn't a principle. This is a subtweet.
The principle being elucidated is something more like "fully specified semantics" or "no undefined behavior". And that's fine. But phrasing it like this is (1) obviously a lie as plenty of Rust code will compile that doesn't work and (2) needlessly picking a fight with C/C++ instead of engaging productively in a discussion of tradeoffs.
Meh. It's time for Rust to start doing more and saying less, IMHO.
It's not just about UB, it's about the design encouraging good code and defensive programming. That includes enums, non nullability, immutability by default, etc.
Still seems poorly captured by "if it compiles, it works", no? The point was this was marketing, not a statement of principle. Rust needs to do more of the latter and less of the former. The time for marketing was years back.
It's always hilarious how near totally amnesiac this whole industry is. People are constantly "inventing" shit that already existed many many decades ago, including all the bugs and warts, oblivious of the fixes and improvements from the decades in between.
AFAICS much -- if not most? -- of the stuff Rust is being lavishly praised for now already existed in Nikolaus Wirth's original Pascal from the early 1970s.
> “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
This isn't a principle. This is a subtweet.
The principle being elucidated is something more like "fully specified semantics" or "no undefined behavior". And that's fine. But phrasing it like this is (1) obviously a lie as plenty of Rust code will compile that doesn't work and (2) needlessly picking a fight with C/C++ instead of engaging productively in a discussion of tradeoffs.
Meh. It's time for Rust to start doing more and saying less, IMHO.