We don't WANT that though. Haven't you been reading? If we need that flag to perform as well as C++, we'll have failed in our mission. We don't just want to make a safe language: we want to make one safe, fast, and concurrent. Also, as Daniel pointed out, the stdlib already relies heavily on safety guarantees, and breaking those would mean you wouldn't be able to use a large percentage of the stdlib functions, and be stuck writing your own. On Mar 28, 2014 7:25 AM, "Tommi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2014, at 05:56, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that Rust should give you the ability to opt out of safety, but > on a per-operation basis. Having it as a compiler option is too much of a > sledgehammer: often you want some non-performance-critical bounds to be > checked in the name of safety, while you want some bounds checks to be > turned off. > > One other argument I can give for a "sledgehammer" feature like this is > that it can be used as a marketing tool against people who are worried > about performance. You can say to those people: "Look, if, at the end of > the day, you decide that you'd rather take raw speed over safety, then > there's this compiler flag you can use to disable all runtime memory safety > checking in your code and get performance on par with C++". > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
