> And so if what you're craving is absolute precision and maximal avoidance of errors or incorrect behavior
If you are being paid to develop software, doing anything other than aiming for absolute correctness seems negligent, at best.
I think this is part of what leads to obsession with Rust. We build so many things on a daily basis with a long long list of 'it depends'. But Rust aims to make you write something as correctly as possible, and provides a really solid base for you to do this. So that list of 'it depends' shrinks drastically and you feel superhuman for building something so solid.
You statement about absolute correctness doe snot really make sence -vast majorulity of bugs in all software I've ever used are not due to the language design, but are due to blatant mistakes of the application developers.
Well exactly. You and your parent's comment are in agreement: languages like Rust that give you less ways to shoot your foot, encourage writing a more correct code.
The premise of the article is about incorrectness in a language. So while I agree that most bugs are likely caused by the developer and not the language they are using, I think my comment makes sense in reference to the main post.
If you are being paid to develop software, doing anything other than aiming for absolute correctness seems negligent, at best.
I think this is part of what leads to obsession with Rust. We build so many things on a daily basis with a long long list of 'it depends'. But Rust aims to make you write something as correctly as possible, and provides a really solid base for you to do this. So that list of 'it depends' shrinks drastically and you feel superhuman for building something so solid.