3 ms·
Rust code tends to rely extensively on generic containers to encapsulate various safety properties. That will be hard to replicate in C. Still, I’d like to se
by comex 4y ago
Rust code tends to rely extensively on generic containers to encapsulate various safety properties. That will be hard to replicate in C.
Still, I’d like to see how it works out in practice. But where’s the code? Judging by the website for ECLAIR, which is the basis of C-rusted according to the paper, it may not be open source:
https://www.bugseng.com/eclair https://www.bugseng.com/eclair
In that case, it may still be useful in the tradition-heavy world of safety-critical embedded applications (which the paper alludes to in mentioning MISRA and certified toolchains), where each codebase is a proprietary island. But it won’t be usable for general-purpose C programs or libraries, nor will it be possible for the community to evaluate on its merits.
- jchw 4y agoIn my opinion, it's terribly disingenuous for them to argue in favor of this approach and use TypeScript as an example without acknowledging that a great deal of making TypeScript practically useful involved investment into adoption and support, and the open nature of it. C-rusted will never expand beyond a niche of some industries if not opened in some form, and likely, if it's actually a good idea another tool will eventually eclipse it. That's a shame, as it seems like a pretty decent idea, even if I feel like the paper is written a bit like an advertisement (it feels a fair bit biased: it's hard to argue that you can't adopt Rust incrementally at all even if it doesn't allow for gradual adoption in the same manner as C-rusted or TypeScript. Also, it definitely doesn't demonstrate a similar competency towards being able to express things safely as Rust does.)