5 ms·
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Rust unsafe only when explicitly using unsafe? Provided this project does not do that, it would be memory safe, no?
by PeterWhittaker 3y ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Rust unsafe only when explicitly using unsafe? Provided this project does not do that, it would be memory safe, no?
- rurban 3y agoLook up their bugreports for stack overflow, besides unsafe blocks everywhere.
- johnisgood 3y agoAnything more than hello world is full of unsafe blocks. You need it. In any case, Ada/SPARK would be the most ideal choice for a "safe" language, not Rust. So tiring.
- pdimitar 3y agoIndeed, this hate is very tiring to find on such threads. Consider not caring. I'll try to do the same.
- johnisgood 3y agoIs my statement considered hate? Is it not the truth, though? Any projects I pick, including Rust's standard library, there are unsafe blocks everywhere, and as a Rust developer has said, those blocks do affect code outside of it.
- pdimitar 3y agoNot this one in particular. It's your tone in this entire thread in general.
- johnisgood 3y agoMy tone is similar throughout my comments. :P
- rurban 3y agoRust has a lot of unsafeties. First their stdlib is mostly unsafe. Also their varargs may overflow. That's why they have tons of stack overflow bugs in their issues. They use unbounded stack allocation, alloca is nice but dangerous. To overcome their segvs they just lie and signal sigabrt instead. They cannot free cycles. They need to use mutexes for concurrency, which is a big no-no, deadlocking. Their FFI is unsafer than lisp ffi's. I don't see a safe of dialect of rust, you could trust. Their new safe pragma doesn't help with all of these. There also tons of CVE's.