Pretty easy to get llvm segfaults, I got that with pony also in development versions. The difference to rust is that this happens with rust compiled binaries also at run-time, in pony very rarely.
Not to besmirch Pony (I think it's a very interesting language), but isn't some of this a base sampling error? There are probably a few orders of magnitude more engineers writing Rust (and therefore running `rustc`), so we'd expect crashes in Rust to surface more frequently.
I'm not sure I understand. Rust is memory safe, and the memory unsafety happening here isn't in Rust itself: an IR generation bug in Rust is causing memory unsafety in LLVM, which is written in C++.
(Besides: If GitHub's stats are correct, `ponyc` seems to be >60% C and C++?)
Compilers for memory safe languages written in the same memory safe languages should be expected to have to same guarantees as any other program written in that language
> The difference to rust is that this happens with rust compiled binaries also at run-time,
The list of issues you linked in an apparent attempt to support this claim are almost all (or maybe even all) compile time crashes not runtime crashes...
Pony committer here, I don't think this comparison is very fair, Rust has way more users, and thus way more eyes looking at it and reporting bugs. We've also had a few runtime segfauts before due to LLVM (mainly when porting to new platforms, like Apple's M1), and we try hard to fix them when we find them.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+SIGSEG... => 87 + 291
vs https://github.com/ponylang/ponyc/issues?q=is%3Aissue+SIGSEG... => 11 + 50
Now compare that to a safe systems language, e.g. sbcl: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bugs?field.searchtext=SIGSE... => 1 (invalid)
or clisp: https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/bugs/?q=%7B%22status%22%3A+%... => 15