4 ms·
Rust Identified as Safer Coding Tool by NIST
- eggy 4y agoGood to see this happening, although aside from the memory-safety, thread-safety bit, how does it compare to SPARK[1], which I am currently using due to its legacy of being used for real-world applications for a couple of decades. SPARK has a verification toolset. I hope the collaboration between AdaCore and Ferrous Systems brings Rust closer to SPARK's current capabilities in producing high-integrity software. I didn't find a formal document from NIST listing what criteria have to be met to be put on this list other than the mention that "ISO/IEC/JTC 1/SC 22/WG 23 is working on"technical report (TR) 24772 Guidance to avoiding vulnerabilities in programming languages." [1] https://www.adacore.com/about-spark https://www.adacore.com/about-spark
- hulitu 4y agoWait till they find that it downloads untrusted code from crates.io.
- millerm 4y agoYou're using the word "safe" in the wrong context here.
- patrick451 4y agoNo, rust has stolen the word. Personally, haveing not drunk the coolaid, I'm not ok with that. They could have been explicit, and just stuck with "memory-safe", which is a subset of "safe". But now it's basically impossible to have a conversation about safety and rust when safety is something other than how rust chose to define.
- halJordan 4y agoNo one is confused about how the word safe is used except you, and your deliberate misunderstanding.
- patrick451 4y agoWhat? This entire thread is about exactly that confusion.
- patrick451 4y agoI'm old enough to remember a time when a lot of folks considered NIST to be compromised and wouldn't trusted their elliptic curves. Kind of makes one wonder about rustc.