4 ms·
I feel like there is an underlying problem here that Rust tries to be a "safe" language while "safety" isn't well defined. Rust said that crashing a process is
by robalni 4y ago
I feel like there is an underlying problem here that Rust tries to be
a "safe" language while "safety" isn't well defined. Rust said that
crashing a process is always safe so that when something unexpected
happens we can always resort to crashing so that we don't risk doing
anything unsafe.
The problem is that this definition of safety is very arbitrary.
Sometimes crashing a process can be safe (as in not causing serious
problems) but sometimes not. Accessing an array out of bounds can be
safe sometimes and sometimes not, and so on.
Rust says that here is a list of things that are always safe and here
is a list of things that are always unsafe and then people want safety
everywhere so they take that definition of safety to other contexts
where it doesn't make sense, like the kernel.