KDE is a great desktop environment , but it's also notorious for being a buggy and unpolished DE [1]. It's good your experience wasn't like that, but it's certainly not how the software is generally perceived.
[1]: Of course, different versions have different levels of stability. Also, some of these bugs and problems wouldn't be prevented by using an alternative language such as Rust.
Well FWIW, the original poster's anti-C++ statements aside, removing the borrow checker does nothing except allow you to write thread-unsafe (or race condition-unsafe) code. Therefore, the only change this really makes is allowing you to write slightly more ergonomic code that could well break somewhere at some point in time unexpectedly.
Nope. Anything which wouldn't pass the borrowck is actually nonsense. This fantasy that magically it will just lose thread safety or have race conditions is just that, a fantasy.
The optimiser knows that Rust's mutable references have no aliases, so it needn't safeguard mutation, but without borrow checking this optimisation is incorrect and arbitrary undefined behaviour results.
People hate C because it's hard, people hate C++ because it truly is rubbish. Rubbish that deserved to be tried but that we've now learned was a mistake and should move on from.
I’m sure some people could tiptoe through minefields daily for years, until they fail. Nobody is perfect at real or metaphorical minefields, and hubris is probably the only reason to scoff at people suggesting alternatives.
Of course. My sense is there are a lot fewer in of out-of-bounds accesses and use after frees. Maybe a world-class programmer can go several decades without writing a memory error in C/C++, but they will probably eventually falter, meanwhile the other 99.9% of programmers fail more often. Why would you decline a compiler’s help eliminating certain types of bugs almost entirely?
