They said race conditions and specifically exempted data races. You can absolutely write race conditions in rust, they're a logic bug.
As an example, let's say you have two functions A and B. A only works properly if B has never ran for some reason. Let's say they both accept a reference to a value C, and B changes C's value somehow. Because this is rust, we can't have data races, so we wrap it in an ArcMutex or what have you. That doesn't impact the ordering of A and B at all.
If we spawn threads that execute A and B at the same time, it's up to the scheduler if A functions properly.
You are being downvoted but you are absolutely correct. I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe. Its touted purely as a _memory_ safe language. To claim otherwise is absurd and very telling of the writer's biases
They said race conditions and specifically exempted data races. You can absolutely write race conditions in rust, they're a logic bug.
As an example, let's say you have two functions A and B. A only works properly if B has never ran for some reason. Let's say they both accept a reference to a value C, and B changes C's value somehow. Because this is rust, we can't have data races, so we wrap it in an ArcMutex or what have you. That doesn't impact the ordering of A and B at all.
If we spawn threads that execute A and B at the same time, it's up to the scheduler if A functions properly.
You are being downvoted but you are absolutely correct. I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe. Its touted purely as a _memory_ safe language. To claim otherwise is absurd and very telling of the writer's biases
> I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe
Please copy and paste from my post where that's being asserted
> Its touted purely as a _memory_ safe language
Which is different from what was said... how?
> To claim otherwise is absurd and very telling of the writer's biases
To pretend that those claims were made is what's actually telling of biases.