And there are things even further afield like what I work on [1][2][3].
And there are things even further afield like what I work on [1][2][3].
I noticed the Regent code is inside the Legion repo. Is Legion the system, and Regent the language?
Can Legion be used without Regent, or vice versa?
Regent is a programming language. The compiler for Regent generates Legion code. Semantically, Regent is mostly a simplification of Legion. There are fewer moving pieces, so fewer things you need to worry about. Many of the "gotchas" that exist in Legion are taken care of by the language/compiler so idiomatic code usually "just works". It also does GPU code generation for you so you don't need to hand-write CUDA/HIP/etc. The tradeoff is that you're using a new programming language, so you have to be willing to take that risk.
"Safely" for a certain kind of definition of safety: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arayon-rs%2Frayon+unsafe&t...
When people say Rust is better for memory safety than e.g. C++, it's not because you can't write a provably-safe library with C++—you can do that with some effort. It's because the Rust language differentiates compiler-asserted safety from programmer-asserted safety via the `unsafe` keyword, an opt-in.
[1]: https://rust-lang.github.io/unsafe-code-guidelines/glossary....
(edit: Sniped, but I believe I've expanded upon the sibling comment.)
> ... would be disingenuous, or at least very ignorant.
That's quite literally what it means - there is a "safe" Rust code that never uses the "unsafe" but the example given by the parent comment is just not the example of that. I am not sure why would my comment come out as ignorant - it's factual state of things.
> it's not because you can't write a provably-safe library with C++
Hm, you really can't? Neither you can with safe or unsafe Rust. None of the compilers for those languages are formally verified.