4 ms·

> There are other kinds of concurrency bugs, such as poor use of locking primitives causing higher-level logical race conditions or deadlocks, and Rust can't el

> There are other kinds of concurrency bugs, such as poor use of locking primitives causing higher-level logical race conditions or deadlocks, and Rust can't eliminate them, but they're usually easier to diagnose and fix. Which is why so many people are creating formal verification languages and spending years in research to fix those ... That just isn't true. It's a very complex problem that is an issue in both hardware (cache-coherency protocols) to OS (atomics locks) to higher level construct (commit-rollback in databases). Consequently > But the biggest potential is in ability to fearlessly parallelize majority of Rust code, even when the equivalent C code would be too risky to parallelize. In this aspect Rust is a much more mature language than C. This couldn't be more wrong either. Rust doesn't help you write synchronization primitives safely because it doesn't handle synchronization like locks, condition variables or atomics. You need formal verification to be fearless.

zesterer 6y ago
You've just taken the word 'fearless', a word that's clearly subjective, and said that the definition the author gives of it "couldn't be more wrong". That's... a choice.
- mratsim 6y ago
  The word is misrepresenting the problem of synchronization and reducing to only memory safety. If it was that simple, Tokio wouldn't need to formally verify their implementation with an external tool and it wouldn't have found dozens of well hidden bugs.
ben0x539 6y ago
Rust may or may not help you write synchronization primitives safely, but it for sure helps you use synchronization primitives without having to worry about memory safety. If you aren't parallelizing particularly subtle shenanigans, that's plenty for fearlessness.
- mratsim 6y ago
  Coming up with a new threadsafe queue design is worthy of a paper even though it's just enqueueing and dequeueing items. Memory safety is just a small part and is a much easier problem than ensuring the absence of race conditions.

zesterer 6y ago

You've just taken the word 'fearless', a word that's clearly subjective, and said that the definition the author gives of it "couldn't be more wrong". That's... a choice.

mratsim 6y ago
The word is misrepresenting the problem of synchronization and reducing to only memory safety. If it was that simple, Tokio wouldn't need to formally verify their implementation with an external tool and it wouldn't have found dozens of well hidden bugs.

ben0x539 6y ago

Rust may or may not help you write synchronization primitives safely, but it for sure helps you use synchronization primitives without having to worry about memory safety. If you aren't parallelizing particularly subtle shenanigans, that's plenty for fearlessness.

mratsim 6y ago
Coming up with a new threadsafe queue design is worthy of a paper even though it's just enqueueing and dequeueing items. Memory safety is just a small part and is a much easier problem than ensuring the absence of race conditions.