6 ms·

On almost any C/C++ or Zig related discussion happening on HN or Twitter you'll find some random Rust evangelist asking why people are still using a "memory uns

On almost any C/C++ or Zig related discussion happening on HN or Twitter you'll find some random Rust evangelist asking why people are still using a "memory unsafe" language to build things. Implying, basically, that any non-Rust system programming language is obsolete. (and should maybe even be considered harmful) I find that deeply annoying. I don't have predictions about the future; the Zig community is not toxic for now.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Ygg2 4y ago
> why people are still using a "memory unsafe" That's a fair question imo. You're tossing the baby with bath water. Because that other person recommended Rust. Rather than Ada/C#. In 2022 any fault that can be used will be misused, so why use a language that might accidentally allow a CVE?
- geocar 4y ago
  > That's a fair question imo. Are you willing to be convinced that you're wrong? Like completely, totally wrong about the value and goodness of "memory safety". Premise. Conclusion. Everything. If you're not, then no, it's not a fair question at all. It's just bait.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    > Are you willing to be convinced that you're wrong? Yes. But you have to prove that your value proposition, doesn't lead to horrible failure down the line. I.e. We need to make software fast, security be damned is not a valid argument.
    - geocar 4y ago
      > But you have to prove that your value proposition, doesn't lead to horrible failure down the line. No I do not. My software is done, it has run for decades on the Internet, making me money; For whatever you could mean by "horrible failure", what I am doing either doesn't lead to it, or it's clearly not that bad. > ... is not a valid argument We're not having an argument; You want to ask a question, I can give you an answer, but there's nothing here to argue: I'm ``using a "memory unsafe"´´ language because I can write secure programs that run quickly with them, and I don't live in a Harrison Bergeron world. This is about why you can't yet, and really doesn't have anything to do with me.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        Then you thankfully don't have to worry about your local jurisdiction catching up with the times of software liability. https://www2.deloitte.com/dl/en/pages/legal/articles/it-sicherheitsgesetz-kritis-verordnung.html https://www2.deloitte.com/dl/en/pages/legal/articles/it-sich... Eventually all countries will have similar laws.
        geocar 4y ago
        Germany is not going to make illegal the selling of software that contains components written in C.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        No, but it requires covering for fixes, free of charge, in special security critical infrastructures. Software company bares the cost of producing faulty software. When it touches the bank, many companies will start considering alternatives. In fact, this is what drove Microsoft et al to start finally embracing other stacks, the amount of money burned fixing exploits for free in OS updates.
      - Ygg2 4y ago
        > I'm ``using a "memory unsafe"´´ language because I can write secure programs that run quickly with them, and I don't live in a Harrison Bergeron world. Did you prove it mathematically? Did you wrap it in Rust API and use miri to inspect for UB? Did you ran it through ASAN, MSAN, STACK, etc? All UB/platform-specific behavior has been accounted for? So you ran fuzzers for days-weeks? What issues did it uncover? Do your test coverage account for all cases and most input variations? Or is this a case of ``I think I can write secure programs``. There is a light-year-wide trench between thinking and proving you can do something. And it still needs to break is not a guarantee.
        kayleee 4y ago
        Rust does not have a formally verified compiler - while C does. So if you want mathematically proven correct code, use C.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Ygg2 4y ago

> why people are still using a "memory unsafe" That's a fair question imo. You're tossing the baby with bath water. Because that other person recommended Rust. Rather than Ada/C#. In 2022 any fault that can be used will be misused, so why use a language that might accidentally allow a CVE?

geocar 4y ago
> That's a fair question imo. Are you willing to be convinced that you're wrong? Like completely, totally wrong about the value and goodness of "memory safety". Premise. Conclusion. Everything. If you're not, then no, it's not a fair question at all. It's just bait.
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > Are you willing to be convinced that you're wrong? Yes. But you have to prove that your value proposition, doesn't lead to horrible failure down the line. I.e. We need to make software fast, security be damned is not a valid argument.
  - geocar 4y ago
    > But you have to prove that your value proposition, doesn't lead to horrible failure down the line. No I do not. My software is done, it has run for decades on the Internet, making me money; For whatever you could mean by "horrible failure", what I am doing either doesn't lead to it, or it's clearly not that bad. > ... is not a valid argument We're not having an argument; You want to ask a question, I can give you an answer, but there's nothing here to argue: I'm ``using a "memory unsafe"´´ language because I can write secure programs that run quickly with them, and I don't live in a Harrison Bergeron world. This is about why you can't yet, and really doesn't have anything to do with me.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Then you thankfully don't have to worry about your local jurisdiction catching up with the times of software liability. https://www2.deloitte.com/dl/en/pages/legal/articles/it-sicherheitsgesetz-kritis-verordnung.html https://www2.deloitte.com/dl/en/pages/legal/articles/it-sich... Eventually all countries will have similar laws.
      - geocar 4y ago
        Germany is not going to make illegal the selling of software that contains components written in C.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        No, but it requires covering for fixes, free of charge, in special security critical infrastructures. Software company bares the cost of producing faulty software. When it touches the bank, many companies will start considering alternatives. In fact, this is what drove Microsoft et al to start finally embracing other stacks, the amount of money burned fixing exploits for free in OS updates.
    - Ygg2 4y ago
      > I'm ``using a "memory unsafe"´´ language because I can write secure programs that run quickly with them, and I don't live in a Harrison Bergeron world. Did you prove it mathematically? Did you wrap it in Rust API and use miri to inspect for UB? Did you ran it through ASAN, MSAN, STACK, etc? All UB/platform-specific behavior has been accounted for? So you ran fuzzers for days-weeks? What issues did it uncover? Do your test coverage account for all cases and most input variations? Or is this a case of ``I think I can write secure programs``. There is a light-year-wide trench between thinking and proving you can do something. And it still needs to break is not a guarantee.
      - kayleee 4y ago
        Rust does not have a formally verified compiler - while C does. So if you want mathematically proven correct code, use C.