From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Microsoft is considering moving to Rust; potential opportunity
 for Ada2020
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:25:20 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <qigpq1$o65$1@dont-email.me>
References: <01e1fc91-a20e-4b48-a10e-57d3935cd06c@googlegroups.com>
 <b9528bc1-55e0-4de6-b255-f13e55a0680c@googlegroups.com>
 <0d4e46d4-c227-4d7a-aafa-44492c6e1d41@googlegroups.com>
 <871ryop74h.fsf@nightsong.com> <ly5znx7k6u.fsf@pushface.org>
 <qicboo$e34$1@dont-email.me>
 <f8a1dfaa-c36a-4a66-b8fd-873888091ed3@googlegroups.com>
 <qie4fh$t00$2@dont-email.me>
 <b0af2648-aced-41ca-a3fb-a2c38c847f63@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:25:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="ba358395170d116922fe57feefc712e3";
	logging-data="24773"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tQLQJYgMEv7jqC7BmBQzB"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7yciORvsR+IGoGhDGeXhoUPO4kQ=
In-Reply-To: <b0af2648-aced-41ca-a3fb-a2c38c847f63@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57008
Date: 2019-08-08T11:25:20+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 8/8/19 4:13, Jere wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 5:09:06 AM UTC-4, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:
>> On 6/8/19 19:49, Brad Moore wrote:
>>
>>> I believe it is also not just related to concurrency. For example, if you pass a pointer to an object into a function which deletes the object, the compiler will detect that use of that pointer after calling the function is not allowed.
>>
>> Yes; concurrency safety (in a limited sense) is the side-effect, not the
>> main point, I'd say.
> 
> I think at some point before the language was first stabilized (2015),
> both were actively pursued.  Here are some musings from the original main
> developer back in 2013ish [1].  Later on, another Mozilla developer also
> talked about a similar topic [2].
> 
> [1]: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2013/06/11/on-the-connection-between-memory-management-and-data-race-freedom/
> [2]: https://manishearth.github.io/blog/2015/05/17/the-problem-with-shared-mutability/
> 
> It is interesting that both of them kind of hint at the idea of a large
> single threaded program having similar challenges to a multithreaded
> program, at least when considering how undefined behavior, data
> invalidation, and data races occur.

I understand better now; thanks for these references.