2 ms·

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