At the very least, something that brings the application down when the dev assumption fails should be called a much more dangerous word than "unwrap".
So yes, the language has failed there.
"You're holding it wrong" doesn't uphold when one of the language's touted characteristics is having a bitchy compiler designed to save devs from their own stupidity.
> "You're holding it wrong" doesn't uphold when one of the language's touted characteristics is having a bitchy compiler designed to save devs from their own stupidity.
The thing is that Rust's promises are more tightly scoped to very specific types of (mis)behavior. I don't believe it has ever claimed to prevent any and all types of stupidity, let alone ones that have non-stupid uses.
At the very least, something that brings the application down when the dev assumption fails should be called a much more dangerous word than "unwrap".
So yes, the language has failed there.
"You're holding it wrong" doesn't uphold when one of the language's touted characteristics is having a bitchy compiler designed to save devs from their own stupidity.