An Anonymous Coward writes:
After many years of waiting, version 1.0 of the Rust programming language has finally been released. The Rust home page describes Rust as "a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast, prevents nearly all segfaults, and guarantees thread safety."
Thanks to the hard work of noted Rust core team members Yehuda Katz and Steve Klabnik, Rust is now poised to become a serious competitor to established systems programming languages like C and C++.
The announcement has brought much jubilation to the followers of Rust, who have been eagerly awaiting this milestone release for so long. With only 1,940 open issues and over 11,500 issues already closed, Rust is finally ready for users to build fantastically reliable software systems using it.
I thought that Rust was supposed to make buggy code hard to write. So why have the Rust compiler and the Rust stdlib suffered from so many bugs?
This is a good question. When I last submitted an LLVM bug, the bug number was in the 21000s. LLVM is a lot more complex than Rust is, but it's written in C++ instead of Rust. Why does a complex compiler system (supporting multiple programming languages!) written in C++ only have say 25000 bugs, but a Rust (and only Rust!) compiler written in Rust has around half that number? Theoretically the Rust number should be a whole lot lower, or the C++ bug count should be a whole lot higher. But the empirical evidence is showing the opposite to be true! The big system written in the "unsafe" language has fewer bugs than the much smaller system written in the "safer" language!
It just means that the compiler and standard library was hard to write.
But the compiler and standard library are mostly written in Rust, so the same promises should apply equally well to them. They're Rust code like any other.
Logic 101: If Rust makes buggy code hard to write, and the compiler and library are buggy code written in Rust, then what follows?
Or in short: Whoosh!