3 ms·
It's a bit silly to say shared mutable state is morally wrong. Rust programs have shared mutable state in that indices often refer to mutable data, and Java pro
by verdagon 5y ago
It's a bit silly to say shared mutable state is morally wrong. Rust programs have shared mutable state in that indices often refer to mutable data, and Java programs allow more conventional shared mutability without memory unsafety.
Shared mutability can enable some bugs, like the existence of a CPU enables bugs, but that doesn't mean CPUs are morally wrong.
- Guvante 5y agoRaw shared mutability is a mine field the moment mutations that depend on the current state occur. If incrementing doesn't always increment you are in for a bad time after all. You are always going to have data that is shared and changes. Any non trivial system will. Rust just discourages the naive "just point to the heap" method that tends to work until it doesn't.
- pjmlp 5y agoExcept Rust can only help when the heap being pointed to isn't shared across processes, possiblity written in multiple languages, e.g. NUMA shared memory.
- Guvante 5y agoIf you do a crazy enough thing it will break isn't material to my statement "naively accessing the heap as if that is thread safe is bad anyway".