> I would argue that the rest of your paragraph talks about how Rust (indirectly) improves security issues.
I think perhaps I didn't communicate my meaning clearly enough. Rust does significantly reduce the risk of a certain class of security problems (reduce not eliminate since it's highly unlikely you'll have 0 unsafe{} blocks anywhere in your dependency chain). That's not disputable since that's part of the language design. That's certainly an advantage it has over C/C++. However, security is far more than just memory safety & I have read nowhere that writing more secure code is a design goal for Rust (I'm not even sure yet such a thing is possible).
> Try misplacing a { in an average LaTeX document. But don't say that you haven't been warned. ;)
> Alternatively, write some C++ code that uses std::map<std::string, std::string> or something like that incorrectly, and marvel at the page-long exceptions with all the default template arguments expanded into an unreadable mess.
I agree 100%. I think perhaps you misread what I wrote? I said I have not encountered a compiler where the errors helps you understand a language.
> Is there a standard tool-enforced coding style for Rust that the community agrees on, in the same way that the Go community has by and large agreed on gofmt?
I think perhaps I didn't communicate my meaning clearly enough. Rust does significantly reduce the risk of a certain class of security problems (reduce not eliminate since it's highly unlikely you'll have 0 unsafe{} blocks anywhere in your dependency chain). That's not disputable since that's part of the language design. That's certainly an advantage it has over C/C++. However, security is far more than just memory safety & I have read nowhere that writing more secure code is a design goal for Rust (I'm not even sure yet such a thing is possible).
> Try misplacing a { in an average LaTeX document. But don't say that you haven't been warned. ;)
> Alternatively, write some C++ code that uses std::map<std::string, std::string> or something like that incorrectly, and marvel at the page-long exceptions with all the default template arguments expanded into an unreadable mess.
I agree 100%. I think perhaps you misread what I wrote? I said I have not encountered a compiler where the errors helps you understand a language.
> Is there a standard tool-enforced coding style for Rust that the community agrees on, in the same way that the Go community has by and large agreed on gofmt?
rustfmt