Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Confused, aren't they losing memory safety?

I get for certain core code situations, you want to manage all memory safety yourself (or use built in static GC), but beyond that it seems to me at a higher level you'd rather have the automatic GC. Why burden all of your developers rather than just a core few?

I don't think GC issues is a compelling argument to move everything to Rust. I'm not saying there aren't compelling arguments, but that just seems a bit odd that that's their main argument.



I’ve never heard the argument that moving to rust reduces memory safety. Isn’t memory safety what rust is known for?


It is! But in Rust you still have an escape hatch in the form of the `unsafe` annotation which allows for mistakes which break memory safety. I don't think Go has something like that, unless you use the FFI. So saying that Go is at least as memory safe as Rust might not be too wrong of a statement.

However I think in total Rust is safer. E.g. Rust prevents a ton of race conditions in multithreaded code, which Go can not do.


Go has data races on multiple cores in safe code, without using any unsafe intrinsics or C FFI.


Nah, guaranteed memory safety is actually one of Rust's main selling points




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: