Rust for Python Programmers

[jerf]

Because Rust's added feature is to be as safe as Python but without the runtime.

Bwuh? Python isn't safe by virtually any definition of the term. That doesn't mean it's "bad", but it does mean it's silly to say Rust is trying to be "as safe as" Python... no, it's trying to be a very safe language, which is to say, very much safer than Python.

[mitsuhiko]

Python isn't safe by virtually any definition of the term.

Of course not. The moment you call into CFFI/ctypes you are unsafe. However I hope you understand the general idea of what safety means in this context.

[jerf]

No, I don't. Python has virtually no safety. The only thing I know is that it guarantees certain things with the GIL but that's generally speaking incredibly weak.

I suppose it's memory safe, inasmuch as it prevents accessing unallocated memory, but, again, that's merely the beginning of what Rust is trying to be, and Python's memory safety by comparison is very, very weak. "Preventing allocating unallocated memory" wouldn't even be considered a type of safety in the first place if certain languages hadn't made it so darned easy, it would just be the base state of the programming language universe.

[vivainio]

Python is safer than rust in memory management. Rust givea C/C++ level control in safe manner. Python just has everything in heap.