> I don't use Rust, but a lot of Rust people say if it compiles it runs.
Do you grok what the issue was with the unwrap, though...?
Idiomatic Rust code does not use that. The fact that it's allowed in a codebase says more about the engineering practices of that particular project/module/whatever. Whoever put the `unwrap` call there had to contend with the notion that it could panic and they still chose to do it.
It's a programmer error, but Rust at least forces you to recognize "okay, I'm going to be an idiot here". There is real value in that.
While I agree that Rust got it right by being more explicit, a lot of bugs in C/C++ can also easily avoided with good engineering practices. The Rust argument that it is mainly the fault of the programming language with C/C++ was always a huge and unfair exaggeration. Now with this entirely predictable ".unwrap" desaster (in general, not necessarily this exact scenarious), the "no true Rustacean would have put unwrap in production" fallacy is sad and funny at the same time.
Unwrap is controversial. The problem is that if you remove it, it makes the bar even higher for newcomers to Rust. One solution is to make it unsafe (along with panic).
Do you grok what the issue was with the unwrap, though...?
Idiomatic Rust code does not use that. The fact that it's allowed in a codebase says more about the engineering practices of that particular project/module/whatever. Whoever put the `unwrap` call there had to contend with the notion that it could panic and they still chose to do it.
It's a programmer error, but Rust at least forces you to recognize "okay, I'm going to be an idiot here". There is real value in that.