<story><title>Does the Bronze Garbage Collector Make Rust Easier to Use?</title><url>https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01098</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>symmetricsaurus</author><text>&amp;gt; A key tradeoff is that Bronze does not guarantee thread safety&lt;p&gt;Not having data races is one of the key benefits of using Rust, “fearless concurrency” and all that. So by throwing away a key guarantee of Rust (no aliasing mutable references), it can become easier for learners to program in. It becomes a bit of an apples and oranges situation at that point.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>hawk_</author><text>Yes pretty much like taking a statically typed language, making compile time type annotations optional and claiming victory that it&amp;#x27;s easier for beginners. Now they would get runtime exceptions instead.</text></comment>
<story><title>Does the Bronze Garbage Collector Make Rust Easier to Use?</title><url>https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01098</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>symmetricsaurus</author><text>&amp;gt; A key tradeoff is that Bronze does not guarantee thread safety&lt;p&gt;Not having data races is one of the key benefits of using Rust, “fearless concurrency” and all that. So by throwing away a key guarantee of Rust (no aliasing mutable references), it can become easier for learners to program in. It becomes a bit of an apples and oranges situation at that point.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>luckystarr</author><text>True, yet in the context of the experiment that part of the language was not used, so they could compare the two approaches.&lt;p&gt;I think this research highlights a important strategy to make all software safer.&lt;p&gt;A quote from the discussion section:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Encouraging adoption of safer languages by reducing stress.</text></comment>