4 ms·

My views are the responses you'll probably get from the people who've been doing systems programming in C for the past 20 years. I don't doubt lots of common ap

by stmfd 10y ago

My views are the responses you'll probably get from the people who've been doing systems programming in C for the past 20 years. I don't doubt lots of common applications have memory issues. Maybe not a definite segfault but it's incredibly disingenuous to act like it's a major issue (as if writing C and C++ are similar to disarming a bomb or something). It's nonsense and the same reason I have been learning C++17's stuff rather than bothering with Rust. I want a better argument for: 1) A C++ developer who's been writing C++ for a long time and is skilled in modern C++ who is wondering why he'd pick up Rust for user application development? I await more superfluous bindings like "Rust-Qt". 2) Porting C/C++ to Rust code (with a rather large codebase). Every argument I've seen for Rust is: out of context, disingenuous when they compare it to other languages, or just incredibly biased. I don't think it's ironic that the majority of people I've met who have started doing Rust are bad at C and C++ and have bought into the list of features on Rust's homepage without any knowledge of anything related to them.

makmanalp 10y ago
You're being so rude and inflammatory, for no reason. What's so frustrating is how you're convinced that everyone else is an idiot. > it's incredibly disingenuous to act like it's a major issue I gave you a trove of real world examples of serious security issues in widely used software developed by competent teams. Quite a few of these would have not existed in a language with the kind of guarantees that Rust provides. How is this disingenuous? Take a look at the OpenBSD bug - any user can kernel panic the whole host, a massive security issue. Are the OpenBSD maintainers, in your opinion, "idiotic"? Or that Xen bug - privilege escalation. Are the Xen developers, in your opinion "imbeciles"? What about all the OpenSSL / OpenSSH ones? Perhaps they're "bad at C"? The truth is that as code gets more complex, writing safe code becomes harder. The above is evidence that even smart and experienced people regularly cause colossal bugs that have real life implications.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- soulbadguy 10y ago
  > I gave you a trove of real world examples of serious security issues in widely used software developed by competent teams. Quite a few of these would have not existed in a language with the kind of guarantees that Rust provides. How is this disingenuous? Genuine question : do we know that those bugs would have been avoided using rust? Maybe some of those part would have had to be done unsafe mode for some reasons. > Take a look at the OpenBSD bug - any user can kernel panic the whole host, a massive security issue. Are the OpenBSD maintainers, in your opinion, "idiotic"? Or that Xen bug - privilege escalation. Are the Xen developers, in your opinion "imbeciles"? What about all the OpenSSL / OpenSSH ones? Perhaps they're "bad at C"? When was this code written ? you are comparing old C code with (non existant/hypothetic) rust code. How do you know the rust wouldn't slower ? > The truth is that as code gets more complex, writing safe code becomes harder. The above is evidence that even smart and experienced people regularly cause colossal bugs that have real life implications. That we completely agree on, but we learn quite a bit on how to write better code. Some of that knowledge got embedded in compilers/compilers warnings and tooling, some retrofitted in the languages themselves , some through libraries design and coding guideline etc... My main problem with your argument is that you saying that a code written in rust today would be safer than a code written in C/C++ decades ago...That's probably true. I think a much more interesting question is how much safer a code written in rust today would be vs a C/C++ code written today , reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    > I think a much more interesting question is how much safer a code written in rust today would be vs a C/C++ code written today , reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system. A lot safer, judging by browser exploits.
    - soulbadguy 10y ago
      > reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system...
      - 10y ago
pcwalton 10y ago
> My views are the responses you'll probably get from the people who've been doing systems programming in C for the past 20 years. I've been doing systems programming in C for 20 years. I disagree with your claim.

by stmfd 10y ago

makmanalp 10y ago

You're being so rude and inflammatory, for no reason. What's so frustrating is how you're convinced that everyone else is an idiot. > it's incredibly disingenuous to act like it's a major issue I gave you a trove of real world examples of serious security issues in widely used software developed by competent teams. Quite a few of these would have not existed in a language with the kind of guarantees that Rust provides. How is this disingenuous? Take a look at the OpenBSD bug - any user can kernel panic the whole host, a massive security issue. Are the OpenBSD maintainers, in your opinion, "idiotic"? Or that Xen bug - privilege escalation. Are the Xen developers, in your opinion "imbeciles"? What about all the OpenSSL / OpenSSH ones? Perhaps they're "bad at C"? The truth is that as code gets more complex, writing safe code becomes harder. The above is evidence that even smart and experienced people regularly cause colossal bugs that have real life implications.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
soulbadguy 10y ago
> I gave you a trove of real world examples of serious security issues in widely used software developed by competent teams. Quite a few of these would have not existed in a language with the kind of guarantees that Rust provides. How is this disingenuous? Genuine question : do we know that those bugs would have been avoided using rust? Maybe some of those part would have had to be done unsafe mode for some reasons. > Take a look at the OpenBSD bug - any user can kernel panic the whole host, a massive security issue. Are the OpenBSD maintainers, in your opinion, "idiotic"? Or that Xen bug - privilege escalation. Are the Xen developers, in your opinion "imbeciles"? What about all the OpenSSL / OpenSSH ones? Perhaps they're "bad at C"? When was this code written ? you are comparing old C code with (non existant/hypothetic) rust code. How do you know the rust wouldn't slower ? > The truth is that as code gets more complex, writing safe code becomes harder. The above is evidence that even smart and experienced people regularly cause colossal bugs that have real life implications. That we completely agree on, but we learn quite a bit on how to write better code. Some of that knowledge got embedded in compilers/compilers warnings and tooling, some retrofitted in the languages themselves , some through libraries design and coding guideline etc... My main problem with your argument is that you saying that a code written in rust today would be safer than a code written in C/C++ decades ago...That's probably true. I think a much more interesting question is how much safer a code written in rust today would be vs a C/C++ code written today , reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  > I think a much more interesting question is how much safer a code written in rust today would be vs a C/C++ code written today , reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system. A lot safer, judging by browser exploits.
  - soulbadguy 10y ago
    > reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system...
    - 10y ago

pcwalton 10y ago

> My views are the responses you'll probably get from the people who've been doing systems programming in C for the past 20 years. I've been doing systems programming in C for 20 years. I disagree with your claim.