4 ms·

The belief that the problem of memory safety that Rust has some compile-time protections against is the only problem (or so much more important problem that the

by sidlls 4y ago

The belief that the problem of memory safety that Rust has some compile-time protections against is the only problem (or so much more important problem that the rest almost don’t matter) of programming, and that therefore Rust is the only sane choice to use for any project. There’s a reason that memes like “Rust Evangelism Strike Force” exist. That’s the biggest one, anyway. I picked up Rust for the first time 8 years ago. I liked it: it felt comfortable in my “worn” C++ hands. But the community outside of a very few core individuals who care deeply about the language’s success can be quite toxic and dismissive of anyone who suggests Rust isn’t basically perfect. And it was a bit of a turn off for me, personally.

Klonoar 4y ago
Uh, what? I’ve found Rust as a project and community to be a very self criticizing group - they know when they’ve got it wrong. They’re simply right about one core thing and they’re loud about it when it comes up. Until something proves them wrong and steals their thunder… I don’t know what to tell you.
- Jensson 4y ago
  In every C++ thread here on HN I've read the past few years there are always some people saying that C++ is unsafe and everyone should migrate to Rust. They might not represent everyone from Rust but that is the part of the Rust community that the C++ community sees the most. Not sure what to do about that really, but I think it caused many C++ programmers to hate the language before they even tried it.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    > In every C++ thread here on HN I've read the past few years there are always some people saying that C++ is unsafe Experience shows that memory safety issues are the most common cause of security issues. Microsoft: >As we’ve seen, roughly 70% of the security issues that the [Microsoft Security Response Center] assigns a CVE to are memory safety issues. This means that if that software had been written in Rust, 70% of these security issues would most likely have been eliminated. https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe-systems-programming/ https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe... Google: >Roughly 70% of all serious security bugs in the Chrome codebase are memory management and safety bugs, Google engineers said this week. https://www.zdnet.com/article/chrome-70-of-all-security-bugs-are-memory-safety-issues/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/chrome-70-of-all-security-bugs...
    - Jensson 4y ago
      You clipped that quote, the aggravating part is where they say that everyone who writes C++ needs to migrate to Rust. Even if it is/was true that will still anger a lot of people when it get posted in every thread about C++.
      - GeekyBear 4y ago
        That doesn't excuse downplaying the security issues so common when using languages that do not offer memory safety. Microsoft: >we’ll peek at why we think that Rust represents the best alternative to C and C++ currently available. First, there are plenty of fantastic memory safe languages already available and widely used inside and outside of Microsoft, including .NET languages like C# or F# and other languages like Swift, Go, and Python. We encourage anyone who is currently using C or C++ to consider whether one of these languages would be appropriate to use instead. We, however, are talking about the need for a safe systems programming language (i.e., a language that can build systems other software runs on, like OS kernels). Such workloads need the speed and predictable performance that C, C++, and Rust provide. When thinking about why Rust is a good alternative, it’s good to think about what we can’t afford to give up by switching from C or C++ — namely performance and control. Rust, just like C and C++ has a minimal and optional “runtime”. Rust’s standard library depends on libc for platforms that support it just like C and C++, but the standard library is also optional so running on platforms without an operating system is also possible. Rust, just like C and C++, also gives the programmer fine-grained control on when and how much memory is allocated allowing the programmer to have a very good idea of exactly how the program will perform every time it is run. What this means for performance in terms of raw speed, control, and predictability, is that Rust, C, and C++ can be thought of in similar terms. https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe-systems-programming/ https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe...
        menaerus 4y ago
        > That doesn't excuse downplaying the security issues so common when using languages that do not offer memory safety. Sure thing but can Rust live up to its memory-safety promise? Or even data-race freedom promise? I must say that, coming from systems programming background, I was always skeptical about those promises because IMO these problems fundamentally cannot be solved in bare-metal programming language. They're implied by the complexity of HW not loop-holes in programming languages. That said I see nothing wrong with Rust but I think that people are vastly overselling its core features while at the same time a quick glance over https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=rust https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=rust will give you exactly a list of bugs which Rust seems to promise not to run into. Another very recent example, and a very good blog post about memory corruption taking place in Rust: https://www.graplsecurity.com/post/attacking-firecracker https://www.graplsecurity.com/post/attacking-firecracker
  - sidlls 4y ago
    That's not a good reason to hate Rust, in my opinion. The community around it, maybe (although "hate" is a strong word), but not the language.

by sidlls 4y ago

Klonoar 4y ago

Uh, what? I’ve found Rust as a project and community to be a very self criticizing group - they know when they’ve got it wrong. They’re simply right about one core thing and they’re loud about it when it comes up. Until something proves them wrong and steals their thunder… I don’t know what to tell you.

Jensson 4y ago
In every C++ thread here on HN I've read the past few years there are always some people saying that C++ is unsafe and everyone should migrate to Rust. They might not represent everyone from Rust but that is the part of the Rust community that the C++ community sees the most. Not sure what to do about that really, but I think it caused many C++ programmers to hate the language before they even tried it.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > In every C++ thread here on HN I've read the past few years there are always some people saying that C++ is unsafe Experience shows that memory safety issues are the most common cause of security issues. Microsoft: >As we’ve seen, roughly 70% of the security issues that the [Microsoft Security Response Center] assigns a CVE to are memory safety issues. This means that if that software had been written in Rust, 70% of these security issues would most likely have been eliminated. https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe-systems-programming/ https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe... Google: >Roughly 70% of all serious security bugs in the Chrome codebase are memory management and safety bugs, Google engineers said this week. https://www.zdnet.com/article/chrome-70-of-all-security-bugs-are-memory-safety-issues/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/chrome-70-of-all-security-bugs...
  - Jensson 4y ago
    You clipped that quote, the aggravating part is where they say that everyone who writes C++ needs to migrate to Rust. Even if it is/was true that will still anger a lot of people when it get posted in every thread about C++.
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      That doesn't excuse downplaying the security issues so common when using languages that do not offer memory safety. Microsoft: >we’ll peek at why we think that Rust represents the best alternative to C and C++ currently available. First, there are plenty of fantastic memory safe languages already available and widely used inside and outside of Microsoft, including .NET languages like C# or F# and other languages like Swift, Go, and Python. We encourage anyone who is currently using C or C++ to consider whether one of these languages would be appropriate to use instead. We, however, are talking about the need for a safe systems programming language (i.e., a language that can build systems other software runs on, like OS kernels). Such workloads need the speed and predictable performance that C, C++, and Rust provide. When thinking about why Rust is a good alternative, it’s good to think about what we can’t afford to give up by switching from C or C++ — namely performance and control. Rust, just like C and C++ has a minimal and optional “runtime”. Rust’s standard library depends on libc for platforms that support it just like C and C++, but the standard library is also optional so running on platforms without an operating system is also possible. Rust, just like C and C++, also gives the programmer fine-grained control on when and how much memory is allocated allowing the programmer to have a very good idea of exactly how the program will perform every time it is run. What this means for performance in terms of raw speed, control, and predictability, is that Rust, C, and C++ can be thought of in similar terms. https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe-systems-programming/ https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe...
      - menaerus 4y ago
        > That doesn't excuse downplaying the security issues so common when using languages that do not offer memory safety. Sure thing but can Rust live up to its memory-safety promise? Or even data-race freedom promise? I must say that, coming from systems programming background, I was always skeptical about those promises because IMO these problems fundamentally cannot be solved in bare-metal programming language. They're implied by the complexity of HW not loop-holes in programming languages. That said I see nothing wrong with Rust but I think that people are vastly overselling its core features while at the same time a quick glance over https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=rust https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=rust will give you exactly a list of bugs which Rust seems to promise not to run into. Another very recent example, and a very good blog post about memory corruption taking place in Rust: https://www.graplsecurity.com/post/attacking-firecracker https://www.graplsecurity.com/post/attacking-firecracker
- sidlls 4y ago
  That's not a good reason to hate Rust, in my opinion. The community around it, maybe (although "hate" is a strong word), but not the language.