Comment by Ygg2

> Yes, but practical minimisation, not hypothetical minimisation, i.e. how can I get the least bugs while keeping all my constraints, including budget. Like I said, a language like Rust exists because minimisation of errors is not the only constraints, because if it were, there are already far more popular languages that do just as much.

Rust achieves practical minimization, if not outright eradication, of a set of errors even in practice. And not just memory safety errors.

> Like I said, a language like Rust exists because minimisation of errors is not the only constraints, because if it were, there are already far more popular languages that do just as much.

The reason Rust exists is that the field hasn't matured enough to accept better engineering practices. If everyone could write and think in pre/post/invariant way, we'd see a lot fewer issues.

> I'm not sure I buy this, because physical, engineered objects break just as much as software does, certainly when weighted by the impact of the failure.

Dude, the front page was about how Comet AI browser can be hacked by your page and ordered to empty your bank account. That's like your fork deciding to gut you like a fish.

> the assumption that the most likely explanation to something is that the majority of practitioners are irrational seems strange to me.

Why? Just because you are intelligent doesn't mean you are rational. Plenty of smart people go bonkers. And looking at the state of the field as a whole, I'd have to ask for proof it's rational.