Perhaps the safety is the tradeoff with the comparative ease of using the language compared to Rust, but I’d love the best of both worlds if it were possible
I am just going to quote what pcwalton said the other day that perhaps answer your question.
>> I’d be much more excited about that promise [memory safety in Rust] if the compiler provided that safety, rather than asking the programmer to do an extraordinary amount of extra work to conform to syntactically enforced safety rules. Put the complexity in the compiler, dudes.
> That exists; it's called garbage collection.
>If you don't want the performance characteristics of garbage collection, something has to give. Either you sacrifice memory safety or you accept a more restrictive paradigm than GC'd languages give you. For some reason, programming language enthusiasts think that if you think really hard, every issue has some solution out there without any drawbacks at all just waiting to be found. But in fact, creating a system that has zero runtime overhead and unlimited aliasing with a mutable heap is as impossible as finding two even numbers whose sum is odd.
I ask because I am obvious blind to other cases - that's what I'm curious about! I generally find the &s to be a net help even without mem safety ... They make it easier to reason about structure, and when things mutate.
The refusal to accept code that the developer knows is correct, simply because it does not fit how the borrow checker wants to see it implemented. That kind of heavy-handed and opinionated supervision is overhead to productivity. (In recent times, others have taken to saying that Rust is less "fun.")
When the purpose of writing code is to solve a problem and not engage in some pedantic or academic exercise, there are much better tools for the job. There are also times when memory safety is not a paramount concern. That makes the overhead of Rust not only unnecessary but also unwelcome.
How do you know it is correct? Did you prove it with pre-condition, invariants and post-condition? Or did you assume based on prior experience.
This means it rejects, by definition alone, bug-free code because that bug free code uses a pattern that is not acceptable.
IOW, while Rust rejects code with bugs, it also rejects code without bugs.
It's part of the deal when choosing Rust, and people who choose Rust know this upfront and are okay with it.
That is not true by definition alone. It is only true if you add the corollary that the patterns which rustc prevents are sometimes bug-free code.
That corollary is only required in the cases that a pattern is unable to produce bug-free code.
In practice, there isn't a pattern that reliably, 100% of the time and deterministically produces a bug.