4 ms·

> And Google's Chromium is simply a convoluted mess, chockful with vulnerabilities and memory corruption errors. I'm sorry, but Ladybird is written in C++. The

by als0 4y ago

> And Google's Chromium is simply a convoluted mess, chockful with vulnerabilities and memory corruption errors. I'm sorry, but Ladybird is written in C++. Therefore, it's inevitable that it will have vulnerabilities and memory corruption errors.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
> Therefore, it's inevitable that it will have vulnerabilities and memory corruption errors. Is it though?
- rvz 4y ago
  Yes it is inevitable, as long as it is using C++ then you will still get memory corruption vulnerabilities. If it was written in Rust on the other hand, it eliminates those specific class of vulnerabilities.
  - UltraViolence 4y ago
    No it isn't. I'm studied the Firefox code and there are lots of raw pointers being used everywhere, instead of them using RAII. Anyway, wxWidgets is an example of a C++ framework which is almost flawless and comparable in complexity to Gecko.
    - rvz 4y ago
      > No it isn't. It is. > I'm studied the Firefox code and there are lots of raw pointers being used everywhere, instead of them using RAII. Firefox is still in C++ and is still subject to memory corruption vulnerabilities, proving my point again. > Anyway, wxWidgets is an example of a C++ framework which is almost flawless and comparable in complexity to Gecko. "almost flawless" is still in the category of 'possible'. Memory corruption is not possible in Rust by default. Surely you understand what 'inevitable' means before giving me an example of a project that has at least one memory corruption vulnerability out of the thousands of other projects that are also in C++, especially browser-based software?
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    I think you should take it easy with the rust kool-aid. Not that black and white in reality.
    - rvz 4y ago
      And in reality, it is really going great for C++ based browsers and their engines like Chromium, and WebKit with all their static analyzers, address sanitizers, valgrind, etc have got their memory corruption CVE woes sorted /s As Ladybird gets more complex, it will most certainly have memory corruption vulnerabilities, just like the other browsers and it will turn out to be no different.
      - marginalia_nu 4y ago
        You're really just dogmatic making assertions. I don't really see much backing these assertions up. Making them more firmly isn't making your case more convincing. -- Let me make a silly argument. Let's say you write a program in rust, a sort of elaborate turing tape that interprets C++ code and evaluates it as a C++ program according to all standards and rules. To the end user it is indistinguishable from a C++ interpreter, but between the C++ code and the system is a layer of rust. According to standard rustacean dogma, this program will simultaneously be guaranteed to be memory safe because it is rust, and inevitably have memory corruption bugs because it is C++. This is surely a contradiction. It cannot both be incorrect and correct at the same time.
        willeum 4y ago
        I'm not agreeing with rvz, but I don't think even extremely pro-Rust devs would agree with what you just claimed

by als0 4y ago

marginalia_nu 4y ago

> Therefore, it's inevitable that it will have vulnerabilities and memory corruption errors. Is it though?

rvz 4y ago
Yes it is inevitable, as long as it is using C++ then you will still get memory corruption vulnerabilities. If it was written in Rust on the other hand, it eliminates those specific class of vulnerabilities.
- UltraViolence 4y ago
  No it isn't. I'm studied the Firefox code and there are lots of raw pointers being used everywhere, instead of them using RAII. Anyway, wxWidgets is an example of a C++ framework which is almost flawless and comparable in complexity to Gecko.
  - rvz 4y ago
    > No it isn't. It is. > I'm studied the Firefox code and there are lots of raw pointers being used everywhere, instead of them using RAII. Firefox is still in C++ and is still subject to memory corruption vulnerabilities, proving my point again. > Anyway, wxWidgets is an example of a C++ framework which is almost flawless and comparable in complexity to Gecko. "almost flawless" is still in the category of 'possible'. Memory corruption is not possible in Rust by default. Surely you understand what 'inevitable' means before giving me an example of a project that has at least one memory corruption vulnerability out of the thousands of other projects that are also in C++, especially browser-based software?
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  I think you should take it easy with the rust kool-aid. Not that black and white in reality.
  - rvz 4y ago
    And in reality, it is really going great for C++ based browsers and their engines like Chromium, and WebKit with all their static analyzers, address sanitizers, valgrind, etc have got their memory corruption CVE woes sorted /s As Ladybird gets more complex, it will most certainly have memory corruption vulnerabilities, just like the other browsers and it will turn out to be no different.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      You're really just dogmatic making assertions. I don't really see much backing these assertions up. Making them more firmly isn't making your case more convincing. -- Let me make a silly argument. Let's say you write a program in rust, a sort of elaborate turing tape that interprets C++ code and evaluates it as a C++ program according to all standards and rules. To the end user it is indistinguishable from a C++ interpreter, but between the C++ code and the system is a layer of rust. According to standard rustacean dogma, this program will simultaneously be guaranteed to be memory safe because it is rust, and inevitably have memory corruption bugs because it is C++. This is surely a contradiction. It cannot both be incorrect and correct at the same time.
      - willeum 4y ago
        I'm not agreeing with rvz, but I don't think even extremely pro-Rust devs would agree with what you just claimed