5 ms·

You have good reason to be wary, it is added complexity that should not be taken lightly. The reason to pay this cost is that the alternatives are: (1) do noth

You have good reason to be wary, it is added complexity that should not be taken lightly. The reason to pay this cost is that the alternatives are: (1) do nothing: keep developing solely in C, (2) rewrite the big C project in Rust in its entirety. The cost of option (1) is significant: memory safety errors contribute to 70% of defects not detected by test [1]. Even with static+dynamic checking tools, developers keep introducing bugs into C projects that aren't possible in safe Rust [2]. The cost of option (2) is significant risk. Big C projects have grown over time and have many implicit requirements already satisfied. Discovering all of those incidental bugs and features that are necessary takes a long time and scales with the size of the project. [1] https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/16/a-proactive-approach-to-more-secure-code/ https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/16/a-proactive-appro... [2] http://blog.vmsplice.net/2020/08/why-qemu-should-move-from-c-to-rust.html http://blog.vmsplice.net/2020/08/why-qemu-should-move-from-c...

kjs3 5y ago
I don't think the only options are "rewrite in Rust" or "don't". There are other options than Rust.
- bestouff 5y ago
  Not with the same performance and memory safety guarantees.
  - kjs3 5y ago
    Prove it. This is going to come as a wild shock to you, but Rust isn't the only language that provides this. There have, in fact, been memory safe, performant languages for decades. But we do live it a bubble here where the norm is anything that hasn't been hyped by a pack of fanbois on HN the last 2 years doesn't exist and "an untruth repeated enough times...".
    - steveklabnik 5y ago
      It’s generally expected that the person making the positive claim demonstrate it. You’re asking them to prove something they don’t think exists. (I have some ideas of what you may say but am curious! You clearly have strong feelings here.)
      - 0xbeefeed 5y ago
        Dude, you need to stop defending Rust at every forum on the internet. Everyone knows you have personal stake involved in seeing Rust grow, and that automatically makes your opinions worthless.
      - kjs3 5y ago
        That's some serious lazy right there. I'm suppose to demonstrate something they could have learn if they'd done a simple search. Can I google that for you? But that goes back to the whole "if someone hasn't hyped up in my echo chamber, it doesn't exist" mentality that got us here, and there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to fix that.

kjs3 5y ago

I don't think the only options are "rewrite in Rust" or "don't". There are other options than Rust.

bestouff 5y ago
Not with the same performance and memory safety guarantees.
- kjs3 5y ago
  Prove it. This is going to come as a wild shock to you, but Rust isn't the only language that provides this. There have, in fact, been memory safe, performant languages for decades. But we do live it a bubble here where the norm is anything that hasn't been hyped by a pack of fanbois on HN the last 2 years doesn't exist and "an untruth repeated enough times...".
  - steveklabnik 5y ago
    It’s generally expected that the person making the positive claim demonstrate it. You’re asking them to prove something they don’t think exists. (I have some ideas of what you may say but am curious! You clearly have strong feelings here.)
    - 0xbeefeed 5y ago
      Dude, you need to stop defending Rust at every forum on the internet. Everyone knows you have personal stake involved in seeing Rust grow, and that automatically makes your opinions worthless.
    - kjs3 5y ago
      That's some serious lazy right there. I'm suppose to demonstrate something they could have learn if they'd done a simple search. Can I google that for you? But that goes back to the whole "if someone hasn't hyped up in my echo chamber, it doesn't exist" mentality that got us here, and there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to fix that.