At this point, I think that would be better, yes, just because people think Rust is "fully" safe, which is just incorrect. I think the problem was the Rust hype and repeated statements of it being very safe, so we have some undoing to do.
For example if someone on GitHub sees that the project is written in Rust, they are automatically going to assume it is safe, incorrectly so. I do not blame them though.
You presumably extend this to every virtual machine or interpreter for every language which is implemented in an unsafe language. When that language claims to be safe (like all such languages claim to be).
The point, I think, was that "safety" presumptions about Rust are often exaggerated or poorly misunderstood due to hype. That could certainly lead to problems
I don’t think Rust’s actual safety properties aren’t overhyped, although they may be subject to misunderstanding about their exact extent.
Concretely: spatial and temporal memory safety are good things, and Rust achieves both. It’s not unique in this regard, nor is it unique in not having a formal definition.
> although they may be subject to misunderstanding about their exact extent
Isnt that what overhype means? Also no one is saying that Rust is unique in being overhyped. It is true of almost any language worth writing in, including c, lisp, python, haskell, type script etc.
I don't see much overhype coming from Rust practitioners. I see a lot of people who care about spatial and temporal memory safety, for which the hype with Rust appears largely appropriate. I've yet to see people (incorrectly) extend this to a claim that Rust solves all security problems, which would meet the definition of overhype.
(If there's nothing unique here, it doesn't make sense to single any particular language out. But each language does have unique properties: Python is a great rapid development language, Rust offers zero-cost abstractions for memory safety, etc.)
> I don't see much overhype coming from Rust practitioners
That is like saying I don't see much overhype about AI from machine learning engineers. I am a ml engineer, and like myself great majority of ml engineers will tell you that there is certainly overhype about the field and do not engage in the overhype. Which is not to say that the field isnt producing some really cool results
> I've yet to see people (incorrectly) extend this to a claim that Rust solves all security problems, which would meet the definition of overhype.
Ive seen plenty of questionable Rust rewrites due to solving security problems
> Python is a great rapid development language
Saying to a Lisper that Python is a great rapid development language is like selling Rust safety to an Ada person :)
> The point, I think, was that "safety" presumptions about Rust are often exaggerated or poorly misunderstood due to hype. That could certainly lead to problems
Then the point is hypocritical.
Runtimes for safe programming languages have been implemented in unsafe languages since the dawn of safe programming languages, basically.
EDIT: I see now that you are the cigarette warning guy. In that case I don’t understand what this coy “I think” speculation is about when you made such a bizarre proclamation on this topic.
A jibe is some sort of playful banter based on a literal or exaggerated truth. Since your comment does not lampoon any real deficiency except when being hypocritical, there is nothing to defend.
Maybe you should wear a sign on your torso: will make irrational points and then complain about persecution when that is pointed out. I don’t know. It’s just one more idea for when we decide to put all the anti-Rust people in camps.
It's weird to imagine for cniles but discussing a language doesn't inherently involve defending it, especially when it's just someone correcting someone else. I know, that's a very weird concept :^)
For example if someone on GitHub sees that the project is written in Rust, they are automatically going to assume it is safe, incorrectly so. I do not blame them though.