5 ms·

>If you have a meaningful contribution to conversation (e.g. you can enlighten us to instances where rust compiles down to inefficient or unsafe code) then make

>If you have a meaningful contribution to conversation (e.g. you can enlighten us to instances where rust compiles down to inefficient or unsafe code) then make it. This should be applied to your original unsubstantiated claim. Rust has some features that improve safety. Writing code in Rust does not generate safe code.

bluejekyll 8y ago
I’m not sure what you mean by this: “Writing code in Rust does not generate safe code.” I mean philosophically you could say there is no safe code, but then what’s the point of any language improvement. Perhaps you mean that Rust has unsafe, which allows you to write unsafe code in Rust. But technically that term is reserved for the developer to make a claim that though the compiler can’t determine the safety of this code, the developer is claiming it is safe. Then there is safe Rust, if you write safe Rust, the guarantees that the program output is safe are pretty high. Given that no software is devoid of bugs, it’s obviously not 100%. So do you have a specific argument your making about why Rust is not safe? Or is it a general comment about software? Edit: I suppose you could be pedantic in that rustc doesn’t generate code, but technically it does, mir and then llvmir. That code then gets compiled to platform specific binaries.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  > mean philosophically you could say there is no safe code, but then what’s the point of any language improvement. I have been writing safety critical code for living, so I think that saying that code "is safe" because it is written in some language is categorical error (not just error of degree) unless it is a language enables formally proofing correctness. You can take fundamentally unsafe language like C. Restrict to subset of it MISRA C and use external static code analysis like Astree that that uses abstract interpretation to prove that there are no run time errors: no memory errors, no division of zero erros, no out-of-bounds array indexing, floating-point or integer overflows, loops always terminate, floating point rounding errors stay within specified limits etc. Something that Rust does not have. Rust has some potential and there are some companies that attempt to provide tooling to make it possible to write safe Rust code, but it's not there yet.
  - Rusky 8y ago
    That sounds exactly like an error of degree- Rust does have "no memory errors" proof tools already, built into the language.
mlevental 8y ago
>This should be applied to your original unsubstantiated claim. my meaningful contribution is a first hand account of my experience with a variety of the aspects of using rust. one potentially imprecise sentence doesn't negate that contribution. you on the other hand with completely contentless sentence fragments are contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  "Guaranteed" is a very strong word. It's okay, though. Just admit that you overstated something, and then easily move on with your life. No big deal. There is power and freedom in the act of letting go of former actions and moving forward, from time to time. If someone judges you for making a small mistake, maybe they are the one with the issue. This is a lesson I'm still practicing as well, so this comment is just as much a reminder to myself.

bluejekyll 8y ago

I’m not sure what you mean by this: “Writing code in Rust does not generate safe code.” I mean philosophically you could say there is no safe code, but then what’s the point of any language improvement. Perhaps you mean that Rust has unsafe, which allows you to write unsafe code in Rust. But technically that term is reserved for the developer to make a claim that though the compiler can’t determine the safety of this code, the developer is claiming it is safe. Then there is safe Rust, if you write safe Rust, the guarantees that the program output is safe are pretty high. Given that no software is devoid of bugs, it’s obviously not 100%. So do you have a specific argument your making about why Rust is not safe? Or is it a general comment about software? Edit: I suppose you could be pedantic in that rustc doesn’t generate code, but technically it does, mir and then llvmir. That code then gets compiled to platform specific binaries.

Nokinside 8y ago
> mean philosophically you could say there is no safe code, but then what’s the point of any language improvement. I have been writing safety critical code for living, so I think that saying that code "is safe" because it is written in some language is categorical error (not just error of degree) unless it is a language enables formally proofing correctness. You can take fundamentally unsafe language like C. Restrict to subset of it MISRA C and use external static code analysis like Astree that that uses abstract interpretation to prove that there are no run time errors: no memory errors, no division of zero erros, no out-of-bounds array indexing, floating-point or integer overflows, loops always terminate, floating point rounding errors stay within specified limits etc. Something that Rust does not have. Rust has some potential and there are some companies that attempt to provide tooling to make it possible to write safe Rust code, but it's not there yet.
- Rusky 8y ago
  That sounds exactly like an error of degree- Rust does have "no memory errors" proof tools already, built into the language.

mlevental 8y ago

>This should be applied to your original unsubstantiated claim. my meaningful contribution is a first hand account of my experience with a variety of the aspects of using rust. one potentially imprecise sentence doesn't negate that contribution. you on the other hand with completely contentless sentence fragments are contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation.

dwaltrip 8y ago
"Guaranteed" is a very strong word. It's okay, though. Just admit that you overstated something, and then easily move on with your life. No big deal. There is power and freedom in the act of letting go of former actions and moving forward, from time to time. If someone judges you for making a small mistake, maybe they are the one with the issue. This is a lesson I'm still practicing as well, so this comment is just as much a reminder to myself.