5 ms·

It's certainly better with such safety annotations than without...

by pulse7 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago
It’s not clear to me that it necessarily is, if those annotations provide a false feeling of security. C-rusted doesn’t seem to have a real story for preserving invariants in linked-in but not locally compiled code, which is the main thing that makes C a valuable ecosystem.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  To be fair, Rust does not really have such a story either. Externally compiled code (i.e. code not built with the exact same version of the compiler) must interact via the unsafe C ABI and be re-wrapped locally into safe Rust-friendly constructs. There are crates to make this a bit easier, though. Things might be different if you could preserve useful invariants all the way down to binary code, of course. Then externally compiled code could also be meaningfully checked for safety.
  - Nullabillity 4y ago
    The difference is culture and tooling: linking against random .so files is normal in the C world, while Rust strongly encourages you to use source dependencies.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      For the time being, as Apple showed by their gigantic effort with Swift ABI, there are C and C++ shops (and Objective-C ones) that really care about dynamic libraries, which any alternative needs to take into account for their adoption. The main issue is the culture, being more in line with ALGOL/PL/Ada/Wirth languages point of view of why security matters, even if there is a bit of unsafe core around.
Gigachad 4y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 4y ago
  It's got to be possible to have a conversation about other languages without these - frankly boring - comments in them. Maybe consider that Rust the language does not benefit from this kind of evangelism if you have no clue about the backstory of that particular project?
  - simplotek 4y ago
    I agree, these ignorant Rust fanboy comments don't help Rust gain any goodwill, and even convey the idea that their vocal proponents are clueless and completely out of touch with basic industry requirements. It's unthinkable for any project to just casually drop everything and go for a complete rewrite in entirely different programming languages and tech stack. But this blend of Rust fanboys keep on insisting this is a reasonable thing (only when it's Rust, oddly) and have the gall of trying to turn things upside down and make believe that it's unreasonable to not jump head first onto a major rewrite.
    - sebzim4500 4y ago
      I've spent quite a bit of time amongst the Rust community, and I have never actually seen any of these RiiR evangelists that are complained about so much on HN. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are a much smaller portion of the community than HN would have you believe.
      - HybridCurve 4y ago
        They are like the Bernie Bros of programming languages.
      - simplotek 4y ago
        > I've spent quite a bit of time amongst the Rust community, and I have never actually seen any of these RiiR evangelists that are complained about so much on HN. You're telling me you don't see "why not rewrite it in Rust" posts in a forum dominated by people who are enthusiastically working on Rust codebases? In the meantime, you did noticed that RiiR is already a meme, didn't you?

It's certainly better with such safety annotations than without...

by pulse7 4y ago

It's certainly better with such safety annotations than without...

It’s not clear to me that it necessarily is, if those annotations provide a false feeling of security. C-rusted doesn’t seem to have a real story for preserving invariants in linked-in but not locally compiled code, which is the main thing that makes C a valuable ecosystem.

zozbot234 4y ago
To be fair, Rust does not really have such a story either. Externally compiled code (i.e. code not built with the exact same version of the compiler) must interact via the unsafe C ABI and be re-wrapped locally into safe Rust-friendly constructs. There are crates to make this a bit easier, though. Things might be different if you could preserve useful invariants all the way down to binary code, of course. Then externally compiled code could also be meaningfully checked for safety.
- Nullabillity 4y ago
  The difference is culture and tooling: linking against random .so files is normal in the C world, while Rust strongly encourages you to use source dependencies.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    For the time being, as Apple showed by their gigantic effort with Swift ABI, there are C and C++ shops (and Objective-C ones) that really care about dynamic libraries, which any alternative needs to take into account for their adoption. The main issue is the culture, being more in line with ALGOL/PL/Ada/Wirth languages point of view of why security matters, even if there is a bit of unsafe core around.

Gigachad 4y ago

[flagged]

jacquesm 4y ago
It's got to be possible to have a conversation about other languages without these - frankly boring - comments in them. Maybe consider that Rust the language does not benefit from this kind of evangelism if you have no clue about the backstory of that particular project?
- simplotek 4y ago
  I agree, these ignorant Rust fanboy comments don't help Rust gain any goodwill, and even convey the idea that their vocal proponents are clueless and completely out of touch with basic industry requirements. It's unthinkable for any project to just casually drop everything and go for a complete rewrite in entirely different programming languages and tech stack. But this blend of Rust fanboys keep on insisting this is a reasonable thing (only when it's Rust, oddly) and have the gall of trying to turn things upside down and make believe that it's unreasonable to not jump head first onto a major rewrite.
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    I've spent quite a bit of time amongst the Rust community, and I have never actually seen any of these RiiR evangelists that are complained about so much on HN. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are a much smaller portion of the community than HN would have you believe.
    - HybridCurve 4y ago
      They are like the Bernie Bros of programming languages.
    - simplotek 4y ago
      > I've spent quite a bit of time amongst the Rust community, and I have never actually seen any of these RiiR evangelists that are complained about so much on HN. You're telling me you don't see "why not rewrite it in Rust" posts in a forum dominated by people who are enthusiastically working on Rust codebases? In the meantime, you did noticed that RiiR is already a meme, didn't you?