> True, but that is something that many miss a lot when discussing Rust virtues.
The large majority of comments I read about Rust safety claims are very explicit that Rust provides memory safety and data-race freedom.
You seem to be arguing that these comments are leaving out important information by not clarifying that "This does not mean that Rust prevents all bugs, e.g., you can still write programs with logic bugs, race conditions, dead locks, DDoS, ... and the list goes on and on... in Rust".
If somebody does not know what that "memory safety" and "data-race freedom" is, they should just ask, but if they don't, and they make an incorrect assumption, then its kind of their fault, not the fault of whoever wrote such a comment for not mentioning all the things that these two properties do not guarantee.
Also, it is actually trivial to build Rust programs that prevent some race-conditions, like deadlocks (just a cargo flag away), so if anything, I'd complain that people being "too correct" by restricting themselves to "data-race freedom" are leaving out some important advantages of Rust.
My experience is that Rust advocates often go well out of their way to specify the limits of Rust’s protection, and will even rush in to correct someone who over promises what Rust can give you.
r/rust and users.rust-lang.org are informative and sensible when it comes to limitations. Twitter and, well, random programming discords are often full of cults
Yeah, I've never criticized Rust advocates for not talking enough about Rust. :P
But seriously, yeah, the seasoned Rustaceans I've known have been pretty thorough in giving downsides/limitations as well. It's something I love about a language; when the voices in it are aggressive in talking about things it does poorly, or use cases it's not optimal (I still love that Erlang's official website has a section for when _not_ to use it).
It's really hard to envision exactly all the problems parallellization might enable in a given system, as it'll all depend on exact implementation and execution details. The safe assumption is whenever you introduce concurrency or even event-handling, stuff might implicitly FUBAR, unless explicitly designed not to. This is a tough pill to swallow when people can't envision exactly all the problems parallellization might enable in a given system (circular argument).
The large majority of comments I read about Rust safety claims are very explicit that Rust provides memory safety and data-race freedom.
You seem to be arguing that these comments are leaving out important information by not clarifying that "This does not mean that Rust prevents all bugs, e.g., you can still write programs with logic bugs, race conditions, dead locks, DDoS, ... and the list goes on and on... in Rust".
If somebody does not know what that "memory safety" and "data-race freedom" is, they should just ask, but if they don't, and they make an incorrect assumption, then its kind of their fault, not the fault of whoever wrote such a comment for not mentioning all the things that these two properties do not guarantee.
Also, it is actually trivial to build Rust programs that prevent some race-conditions, like deadlocks (just a cargo flag away), so if anything, I'd complain that people being "too correct" by restricting themselves to "data-race freedom" are leaving out some important advantages of Rust.