3 ms·

> C# actually has unsafe too. An optional feature. Very useful for embedded and similar, but for general-purpose stuff like the web you never need anything uns

> C# actually has unsafe too. An optional feature. Very useful for embedded and similar, but for general-purpose stuff like the web you never need anything unsafe. > it's pretty common in both of these languages for there to be C libraries involved somewhere in the stack. Negative. The complete stack is open source. You can browse the source code of the standard library at https://source.dot.net/ https://source.dot.net/ You only gonna find unsafe/dllimport for IO parts of that library where they integrate with file systems and such. All their core components are 100% managed code.

Arnavion 6y ago
Filesystems, networking, ... Basically anything a program needs to interact with things outside its address space requires C interop and thus unsafe code. I sure hope your web server is listening on a socket because it's not going to be much of a web server otherwise. Then there's crypto, for which the corelib defers to the OS (CNG / openssl) because doing crypto in managed code is hard. But forget all that; even pure C# code isn't safe because it occasionally needs to hook into the CLR for unsafe things. Eg https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/Dictionary.cs,827 https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/Dictionary.cs... - unsafe code called from Dictionary.Remove
- Const-me 6y ago
  All modern OSes are written in C and/or C++, unsafe code is inevitable there. Some people tried to fix that a few times (hardware java machines, singularity/midori, etc.), wasn't good enough. > unsafe code called from Dictionary.Remove For creating, and checking for, empty reference. Rust standard library uses unsafe way more. That design has consequences, e.g. check this https://medium.com/@shnatsel/how-rusts-standard-library-was-vulnerable-for-years-and-nobody-noticed-aebf0503c3d6 https://medium.com/@shnatsel/how-rusts-standard-library-was-... It's somewhat harder to screw up when you can rely on VM guarantees, and don't need that level of trust in the libraries you consume.
  - Arnavion 6y ago
    You misunderstand. I have nothing against the standard libraries of a language using unsafe code. However you are the one that said: >but for general-purpose stuff like the web you never need anything unsafe. ... and: >> it's pretty common in both of these languages for there to be C libraries involved somewhere in the stack. >Negative. [...] All their core components are 100% managed code. ... so I posted a correction.

Arnavion 6y ago

Filesystems, networking, ... Basically anything a program needs to interact with things outside its address space requires C interop and thus unsafe code. I sure hope your web server is listening on a socket because it's not going to be much of a web server otherwise. Then there's crypto, for which the corelib defers to the OS (CNG / openssl) because doing crypto in managed code is hard. But forget all that; even pure C# code isn't safe because it occasionally needs to hook into the CLR for unsafe things. Eg https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/Dictionary.cs,827 https://source.dot.net/#System.Private.CoreLib/Dictionary.cs... - unsafe code called from Dictionary.Remove

Const-me 6y ago
All modern OSes are written in C and/or C++, unsafe code is inevitable there. Some people tried to fix that a few times (hardware java machines, singularity/midori, etc.), wasn't good enough. > unsafe code called from Dictionary.Remove For creating, and checking for, empty reference. Rust standard library uses unsafe way more. That design has consequences, e.g. check this https://medium.com/@shnatsel/how-rusts-standard-library-was-vulnerable-for-years-and-nobody-noticed-aebf0503c3d6 https://medium.com/@shnatsel/how-rusts-standard-library-was-... It's somewhat harder to screw up when you can rely on VM guarantees, and don't need that level of trust in the libraries you consume.
- Arnavion 6y ago
  You misunderstand. I have nothing against the standard libraries of a language using unsafe code. However you are the one that said: >but for general-purpose stuff like the web you never need anything unsafe. ... and: >> it's pretty common in both of these languages for there to be C libraries involved somewhere in the stack. >Negative. [...] All their core components are 100% managed code. ... so I posted a correction.