3 ms·

Your original comment: > I see this statement is oft repeated on HN, but no proof is offered in its support. Where "this statement" refers to > It’s more saf

Your original comment: > I see this statement is oft repeated on HN, but no proof is offered in its support. Where "this statement" refers to > It’s more safe than those languages because of its type system. Memory safety isn’t the only kind of safety, after all. :) To paraphrase, you did not have proof that Rust had features that enabled safety beyond memory safety. I gave you an example of such a feature, and explained how it provides a type of safety beyond memory safety. > And the lack of evidence in this area There's plenty of evidence. Abstractly, the "program is in invalid state but continues" is a huge error in general. More concretely, in terms of research, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/p-programming-language-asynchrony/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/p-programming-... I could likely find thousands of other applications of FSMs (or papers on the subject) for safety critical work. Here's one of the first results when I looked, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160000328.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201600... > To this end, state machine analysis offers a method to support engineering and operational efforts, identify and avert undesirable or potentially hazardous system states, and evaluate system requirements. I don't really feel the need to argue that state machines are a powerful tool for improving correctness of code. I think I've already addressed that Rust provides safety features that are: a) Not easy to express in other mainstream langauges b) Do not fall into the category of memory safety

blub 7y ago
I think we went far off topic form what I wanted to know and somehow ended up discussing the merits of FSMs, so I'd like to get back to what I consider the key point here: * Rust provides guaranteed memory safety. Memory leaks aside. * Rust provides freedom from race conditions. Deadlocks aside. What other kinds of safety does it provide? I often see optional/result/match or generally "the type system" brought up and this is what I'm explicitly challenging.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  > What other kinds of safety does it provide? I'm confused because the entire thread is about answering this question and I even detailed it explicitly in the previous post. It provides the safety from invalid state transitions in the form of opt-in state machine type encoding. What else is there to discuss? I just gave you a concrete example, which you challenged on the basis that it was not impactful, so I provided you research showing otherwise.

blub 7y ago

I think we went far off topic form what I wanted to know and somehow ended up discussing the merits of FSMs, so I'd like to get back to what I consider the key point here: * Rust provides guaranteed memory safety. Memory leaks aside. * Rust provides freedom from race conditions. Deadlocks aside. What other kinds of safety does it provide? I often see optional/result/match or generally "the type system" brought up and this is what I'm explicitly challenging.

staticassertion 7y ago
> What other kinds of safety does it provide? I'm confused because the entire thread is about answering this question and I even detailed it explicitly in the previous post. It provides the safety from invalid state transitions in the form of opt-in state machine type encoding. What else is there to discuss? I just gave you a concrete example, which you challenged on the basis that it was not impactful, so I provided you research showing otherwise.