This makes no sense at all. For one, it's a language under heavy development. Obviously most of these issues where things not implemented already, library ftuff missing, temporary implementations that had to be changed to the new one, small and bigger regressions due to syntax and library changes etc etc.
Second, you'd rather those issues remained open? Or that magically some rainbow unicorns perhaps would have prevented the language from having any issues in the first place?
What matters is that the number of issues drops low enough, as the language tries to reach version 1.0. And what the announce here is very well aligned with that goal.
I think he may just be surprised that those bugs still occurred, given how the Rust toolchain is itself implemented in Rust, by the designers of Rust, and how Rust is supposedly designed in a way that prevents bugs to a larger extent than other languages do.
It's understandable where he's coming from. If those who know Rust the best are still subject to bugs in their Rust code, it's perfectly valid and reasonable to wonder if the rest of us really be any better off than we are with Java, or C#, or Python, or whatever language(s) we're currently using.
>I think he may just be surprised that those bugs still occurred, given how the Rust toolchain is itself implemented in Rust, by the designers of Rust, and how Rust is supposedly designed in a way that prevents bugs to a larger extent than other languages do.
Well, then what he probably doesn't understand is that those bugs are not in their majority memory bugs or sound-ness bugs or bugs in the things Rust is supposed to protect you from.
Most are issues related to half or mis-implemented features, syntax that changed and libs that need to change in accordance, etc. If I have:
random() { return 6;}
as a stub, I could post an issue to remind me to implement a actual random number generator later. Doesn't mean the language has some inherent problem itself.
This makes no sense at all. For one, it's a language under heavy development. Obviously most of these issues where things not implemented already, library ftuff missing, temporary implementations that had to be changed to the new one, small and bigger regressions due to syntax and library changes etc etc.
Second, you'd rather those issues remained open? Or that magically some rainbow unicorns perhaps would have prevented the language from having any issues in the first place?
What matters is that the number of issues drops low enough, as the language tries to reach version 1.0. And what the announce here is very well aligned with that goal.