I understand what it’s saying. I just disagree that it has to be done for every compilation. Often, as a human, I can reason that it is safe (or reasonably safe for what bug I am attempting to fix). I’m not talking about released software, I’m talking about software I am developing in the moment that I am developing it.

> as a human, I can reason that it is safe

This assumption has been tested at societal scale and proven false, at great cost.

I didn’t say I could do it successfully or that it even matters. Only that I am able to and execute, at my own discretion. You know, have agency.

This is exactly the attitude that makes me very happy that the Rust compiler is so strict. The people who need the training wheels most are the same folks who think they don't.

I mean, I fix bugs. Rewriting half the program just to verify the bugs are fixed is overkill before opening a PR (you know, verifying the approach, validating assumptions, manual tests, the stuff you do long before actually fixing the bug, etc). But comments like these and others on this thread is exactly why I may not in the future. This is a rather toxic thread. People seem to treat this thing as a religious artifact without giving a single reason grounded in practical computer science and software engineering.

> But comments like these and others on this thread is exactly why I may not in the future.

Please take your C style memory bugs with you.

In case anyone reading the thread would like quality information about Rust and memory safety, a great place to start is: https://www.youtube.com/@NoBoilerplate