4 ms·

It's also not nearly as prevalent as people from outside the ecosystem seem to think it is. I read a lot of "any non-trivial Rust code will have to use unsafe"

• ordu 6y ago
  I believe if we dug into things deeper, we would find that "non-trivial code" here means "code that doesn't need unsafe". Developers of rust and std do a great job to cover all the "non-trivial" cases by the std types. Everything covered by them doesn't seem non-trivial anymore. So... here we are.
• pjmlp 6y ago
  The work being continuously done to improve the state of unsafe on crates.io proves otherwise. That is my point, people continue to use "C with Classes" because they don't know better or were poorly taught, likewise many reach out to unsafe as they cannot make it work otherwise and leave the code like that. In a world with a very thin standard library and an npm like dependency tree, every crate might be full of unsafe surprises that one is only aware if going through all of them. And this in a scenario where cargo doesn't do binary dependencies.
  • Jweb_Guru 6y ago
    Only about 1% of Rust code is unsafe. We can still expect that 1% to be just as full of memory safety bugs as C++, so it's obviously important to clean those crates up, but that's a pretty huge improvement. It's also much easier (actually tractable, in many cases) to completely review a dependency's uses of unsafe, compared to doing a thorough code review of an entire dependency as you would have to do in C or C++ to get the same guarantees.