4 ms·
You most definitely know a lot more about code than me. So I'm not challenging you at all. But my contention is that robustness is a function of resilience. C h
by gsanghera 11y ago
You most definitely know a lot more about code than me. So I'm not challenging you at all. But my contention is that robustness is a function of resilience. C has a class of errors which are hard to spot for foot-soldiers, and sometimes even generals which can leave deadly chinks unspotted for long. If Rust attempts to do away with those specific type of errors altogether, what's wrong with that? Rewriting code.
And if that seems like a challenge worth attempting for some people, I can't fault it. And in the process maybe we will discover more bugs, or maybe something better. Its evolution, no?
- mikegerwitz 11y agoIt's not a bad thing that Rust addresses these issues. That's good, and essential for newer languages---it wouldn't make sense to not try to solve these problems in a language that intends to be lower-level (like Rust), relatively speaking. The paper on the Limits of Correctness that I mentioned above does a good job at arguing my point. Even if you rewrote glibc in a language like Coq and formally proved its correctness, that doesn't mean that it's "correct" in the sense that its logic mimics glibc---there could be logic errors. So you might gain confidence (or guarantees) in rewriting glibc in Rust, but in rewriting it you potentially introduce a host of new issues.