I might misunderstand your comment since English is not my mother tongue, but worth regarding what? If you need a poem, an engineer might be worthless; if I need a bridge, I wouldn’t call a poet.
The greatest ecologist and the patient in coma have the same worth as in “both have the same right to live, to be happy, etc.”.
I’m not sure your conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. There are aspiring writers who care about writing and/or publishing, and writers who care about literature. The formers usually are weaker readers. However, most of the readers don’t want to become writers.
I understand what you’re saying, but I read that phrase in a different way.
Let’s say you have two ways of doing the same thing: both work, both are legit and neither introduce GC bugs. The only difference between the two is that one can be verified by the compiler while the other can’t, so you are stuck with solution no. 1 although both would work.
To phrase it differently: the code that gets verified by the compiler is safe, but is all safe code verifiable by the compiler?
I’m not implying that’s the case, but that’s what I feel the author is saying.
> To phrase it differently: the code that gets verified by the compiler is safe, but is all safe code verifiable by the compiler?
Right. And this reduces to the halting problem, so in theory the compiler cannot know that all safe code is safe.
In practice, I'm saying that not just syntactically, but in your code's design, the compiler is more likely to be right. It's a bit like Chesterton's fence. You can bypass the lifetime checks if you just have the confidence to say "yes, I'll use `unsafe` here and it's fine because these reasons". As you're writing your "SAFETY" comment, you may very well find yourself not so confident anymore. And indeed, often this compiler-induced "stop and think" prevented you steaming ahead with a bug.
Now, the borrow checker is not perfect. I don't know how far away from "all but NP-complete cases" it is. My experience is that it's almost always right, and I've only had to put a seemingly needless "drop" statement to placate it. But they're working on it. A new one is coming: https://daily.dev/posts/rust-s-new-borrow-checker-is-coming-...
In any case "by arranging your program in a way the compiler can verify" I think is not accurate, because the overlap between "correct" and "compiler can verify" is nearly complete, though yes the latter is a strict subset of the former. In other words I don't write Rust to make the compiler be able to verify it, but to make it correct. And nearly always that means the compiler can verify it too.
To the point Polonius is finally landing, and while it is better than current NLL, there are some issues it introduces, and it is still far from production.
Because of this "halting problem" compromise, I prefer the approach other languages are pursuing, keeping some form of automatic memory management, while improving their type systems, like Swift, Chapel, OxCaml, Scala 3, et al are pursuing.
I’m sure you’re aware that it _greatly_ depends on the region you’re living in. The fact that consultori are for reproductive health doesn’t mean that there are no obiettori: for some of them the purpose of those structures are exactly to prevent abortions. There are many accounts of women who were pushed to not interrupting a pregnancy.
It appears so, but that 50$ doesn’t keep going. What happens, for example, when the grocery gets robbed? That 50$ becomes 0$. When money’s involved, whether it’s debit/credit or cash, there’s always a money management cost involved, and cash usually has a much higher cost than debit or credit.
I think they're just telling OP that the name might generate confusion. If that's the case, I don't really agree. "Libro", as you point out, is just Italian (and Spanish, fwiw) for "book".
The greatest ecologist and the patient in coma have the same worth as in “both have the same right to live, to be happy, etc.”.