Hacker News Reader

Comment by saurik | Hacker News Reader

When you are writing software that you just _know_ is going to be used to store and manage money as its primary purpose, that means there are direct monetary benefits to people who can find exploits in your software: it isn't "maybe some government wants this" but "with an exploit I can directly steal a hundred million dollars and I would likely be unable to be caught". That makes you paranoid about getting the security correct.

View on HN

So why rust then? Rust does not have a specification and it is currently still under heavy development, with many changes to the language expected to come out in the years to come. As many have put it before me, all of rust is technically undefined behavior. Change my mind -- I like the language, but I prefer those that have specifications and have multiple implementations so that the behavior is verified.

> ...all of rust is undefined behavior

Do you have any links or an explanation that elaborates on this?

There’s no spec. A more accurate statement might be “all of Rust is implementation-defined behavior”.

There is a spec, just not a formal fixed in time one. There's only one reference implementation so that might as well be taken as the de-facto spec.

That’s what I said. What’s your point?

> all of rust is technically undefined behavior.

Even if this is technically true (and I'm not really convinced that it is) it is not practically meaningful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com