Can we currently reason about Rust code with absolute certainty? Not really, but we should be able to. In this article, we dive into the reasons why it may be time for a Rust specification.

Lobsters is a community-driven platform for sharing and discussing links to articles, tutorials, and projects related to technology and programming. Readers can learn about a wide range of topics, from software development and system administration to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. With user submissions, comments, and voting, Lobsters provides a platform for collaborative learning and knowledge sharing among technology enthusiasts.

Lobsters

The post discusses the need for an official language specification for Rust, highlighting issues developers face without it, such as uncertainty in code behavior and challenges in safety-critical software. It compares Rust's current state to C++, which has a clear standard, and emphasizes how a specification would provide stronger guarantees and facilitate the creation of alternative compilers and safety-critical applications.

Rust needs an official specification

How a Rust Language Specification would help us

Bring on the Rust Language Specification!

<p>I agree that Rust needs a full specification, and work is being done on that. However, that example is bunk: it’s well defined behavior that’s documented in the Reference. See: <a href="https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/patterns.html#wildcard-pattern" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/patterns.html#wildcard-pattern</a></p>


<p>This article looks like it was written by a Linux kernel developer trying to discourage others from using Rust 😁</p>
