4 ms·

> https://pingcap.com/blog/rust-compilation-model-calamity https://pingcap.com/blog/rust-compilation-model-calamity Most of those issues are either about the c

by creata 6y ago

> https://pingcap.com/blog/rust-compilation-model-calamity https://pingcap.com/blog/rust-compilation-model-calamity Most of those issues are either about the compiler (it generates a lot of LLVM IR, it's single-threaded), or apply equally well to C++ (monomorphization, macros, build scripts). Nothing significantly impacting compilation times is fundamental to the language afaict. > It's same issue as in C# and many others: someone has to write and support the bindings, which adds cost. True. > In VM-based languages which don't use unsafe code Since you've added that qualifier, sure, Rust would be less safe. But how many VMs don't have such escape hatches? JavaScript in the browser is the only one that comes to mind. > vulnerabilities like this are impossible by design I find this very hard to believe. Even if your VM has no unsafe code, its standard library is probably implemented in unsafe code, where vulnerabilities like this can definitely happen.

Const-me 6y ago
> Most of those issues Some of these issues > monomorphization C++ language is equally bad, but there're well-known workarounds. If you don't abuse Alexandrescu-style, using compilation units, have sane architecture without God objects, it's often not too bad. > macros Not just any macros, macros who require multiple passes. C macros are single-pass and pretty efficient. > build scripts How that applies to C++? > how many VMs don't have such escape hatches? Java doesn't. In C# the hatch exists but can be reliably shut. > its standard library is probably implemented in unsafe code No, they don't. http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/util/ArrayList.java.html http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/util/ArrayList.java.html https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/List.cs https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/List.cs
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  > Java doesn't. JNI, com.sun.misc.Unsafe, etc > In C# the hatch exists but can be reliably shut. P/Invoke?
  - azakai 6y ago
    Technically the unsafe escape hatches exist in those languages, but I think the point is that they are needed less. In Rust you need unsafe to implement some types of graphs, for example, which in GC languages are easy to do without any unsafety. It's a tradeoff, of course: GC languages let you avoid unsafe code at the cost of doing GCs, which in some applications is an issue. Rust's stroke of genius is that it can avoid GCs while giving you almost all the safety of a GC language. Overall I think it's safe (no pun intended) to say that Rust is significantly safer than C or C++, but slightly less safe than Java or C#. But of course both of those comparisons have lots of caveats and exceptions. And there are other factors than safety as well.
  - Const-me 6y ago
    > JNI It's so complicated practically no one uses it. > P/Invoke? Can be disabled at VM level. Environments like asp.net classic default to partial trust, this ensures vast majority of third-party libraries aren't using p/invoke nor unsafe.

by creata 6y ago

Const-me 6y ago

> Most of those issues Some of these issues > monomorphization C++ language is equally bad, but there're well-known workarounds. If you don't abuse Alexandrescu-style, using compilation units, have sane architecture without God objects, it's often not too bad. > macros Not just any macros, macros who require multiple passes. C macros are single-pass and pretty efficient. > build scripts How that applies to C++? > how many VMs don't have such escape hatches? Java doesn't. In C# the hatch exists but can be reliably shut. > its standard library is probably implemented in unsafe code No, they don't. http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/util/ArrayList.java.html http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/util/ArrayList.java.html https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/List.cs https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/List.cs

Nullabillity 6y ago
> Java doesn't. JNI, com.sun.misc.Unsafe, etc > In C# the hatch exists but can be reliably shut. P/Invoke?
- azakai 6y ago
  Technically the unsafe escape hatches exist in those languages, but I think the point is that they are needed less. In Rust you need unsafe to implement some types of graphs, for example, which in GC languages are easy to do without any unsafety. It's a tradeoff, of course: GC languages let you avoid unsafe code at the cost of doing GCs, which in some applications is an issue. Rust's stroke of genius is that it can avoid GCs while giving you almost all the safety of a GC language. Overall I think it's safe (no pun intended) to say that Rust is significantly safer than C or C++, but slightly less safe than Java or C#. But of course both of those comparisons have lots of caveats and exceptions. And there are other factors than safety as well.
- Const-me 6y ago
  > JNI It's so complicated practically no one uses it. > P/Invoke? Can be disabled at VM level. Environments like asp.net classic default to partial trust, this ensures vast majority of third-party libraries aren't using p/invoke nor unsafe.