5 ms·

> Considering "it's written in Rust" is synonymous with "it has been statically guaranteed to not contain a wide class of common bugs that frequently cause seve

> Considering "it's written in Rust" is synonymous with "it has been statically guaranteed to not contain a wide class of common bugs that frequently cause severe vulnerabilities" No it isn't. It's not like we've been writing too much applications C-code recently and it's not like Rust offers that much fundamental security over e.g. Golang

DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
> it's not like Rust offers that much fundamental security over e.g. Golang It absolutely does, while also being more expressive. I suggest reading more of the type system literature before making unfounded claims like this.
- foverzar 3y ago
  > I suggest reading more of the type system literature Like what, in general? I've been working with variously typed languages of various maturity with stuff like structural typing, null-safety, sealed/enum types, inlined and dto/data types, functional types, various implementations of traiting/inheritance/prototyping, etc for years. Do you have a specific point or did you assume that being vague makes you look mysteriously smart? Honestly, you are acting like all we ever had is JS, C and Rust.
  - DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
    Okay, so you've listed a lot of type system features... which is fine (and exciting!), but not relevant? > Do you have a specific point or did you assume that being vague makes you look mysteriously smart? My point was what I said: you should read the academic literature in this space to understand why Rust is fundamentally safer than languages like Go. It's not just a made-up marketing ploy. The type system is specifically designed to make it very difficult to incur issues with memory, which was Rust's primary goal as a modern systems language. Yes, other languages have fancy features, and some of those features are not in Rust. But the features you mentioned don't specifically relate to memory safety, which was the topic at hand. Most of the features you mentioned are actually just about expressiveness of the type system, but not fundamentally distinct forms of type-checking. Rust's type system is based on earlier work from Cyclone. You can find the various Cyclone papers here: [http://cyclone.thelanguage.org/wiki/Papers/ http://cyclone.thelanguage.org/wiki/Papers/]. Specifically, you'll want to look at the papers concerned with memory safety, which is where the region-based type system was first introduced. > Honestly, you are acting like all we ever had is JS, C and Rust. No, I'm pretty familiar with the landscape of programming languages — it comes with the job! I think you just didn't understand my point, which is probably my fault for not being clearer originally. It happens when I reply from my phone sometimes. Apologies.
    - foverzar 3y ago
      Thank you, it was extremely unclear to what specific niche of type systems problem domain you were referring to.
      - DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
        I feel like you're being sassy with me, and I don't much care for it. That Rust is fundamentally more secure (in certain, specific ways) than other languages is a fact, not an opinion. It is a fact well-known by members of the programming languages research community, users of the language, and other sufficiently interested people. I didn't think to qualify it by citing the relevant papers partly because the fact is well-known, partly because the fact is easily researched, and partly because this is an informal conversation where you don't always need to bring primary evidence simply to talk to people. Just because you were not aware of this fact didn't grant you license to be so dismissive at the start. Your first interaction with me was a stern, corrective "No it isn't". You were wrong, but worse than that, you were authoritative in your wrongness. If you had just asked me to explain what I meant instead of trying to correct me, this conversation could've gone differently. Now, maybe I've misread your tone, in which case I genuinely apologize. But the certainty with which you made your incorrect statements at the beginning, followed by your kind-of condescending interactions with me in the comments since then, makes me think I am right in my interpretation, and I think that's really unfortunate.
        foverzar 3y ago
        > I feel like you're being sassy with me I am honestly not. Please don't read too much into my tone, English is not my native language. It actually wasn't clear why you've mentioned types theory initially, the semantics of "expressive types" confused me a bit, but I upvoted your latter post where you elaborated.

DonaldPShimoda 3y ago

> it's not like Rust offers that much fundamental security over e.g. Golang It absolutely does, while also being more expressive. I suggest reading more of the type system literature before making unfounded claims like this.

foverzar 3y ago
> I suggest reading more of the type system literature Like what, in general? I've been working with variously typed languages of various maturity with stuff like structural typing, null-safety, sealed/enum types, inlined and dto/data types, functional types, various implementations of traiting/inheritance/prototyping, etc for years. Do you have a specific point or did you assume that being vague makes you look mysteriously smart? Honestly, you are acting like all we ever had is JS, C and Rust.
- DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
  Okay, so you've listed a lot of type system features... which is fine (and exciting!), but not relevant? > Do you have a specific point or did you assume that being vague makes you look mysteriously smart? My point was what I said: you should read the academic literature in this space to understand why Rust is fundamentally safer than languages like Go. It's not just a made-up marketing ploy. The type system is specifically designed to make it very difficult to incur issues with memory, which was Rust's primary goal as a modern systems language. Yes, other languages have fancy features, and some of those features are not in Rust. But the features you mentioned don't specifically relate to memory safety, which was the topic at hand. Most of the features you mentioned are actually just about expressiveness of the type system, but not fundamentally distinct forms of type-checking. Rust's type system is based on earlier work from Cyclone. You can find the various Cyclone papers here: [http://cyclone.thelanguage.org/wiki/Papers/ http://cyclone.thelanguage.org/wiki/Papers/]. Specifically, you'll want to look at the papers concerned with memory safety, which is where the region-based type system was first introduced. > Honestly, you are acting like all we ever had is JS, C and Rust. No, I'm pretty familiar with the landscape of programming languages — it comes with the job! I think you just didn't understand my point, which is probably my fault for not being clearer originally. It happens when I reply from my phone sometimes. Apologies.
  - foverzar 3y ago
    Thank you, it was extremely unclear to what specific niche of type systems problem domain you were referring to.
    - DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
      I feel like you're being sassy with me, and I don't much care for it. That Rust is fundamentally more secure (in certain, specific ways) than other languages is a fact, not an opinion. It is a fact well-known by members of the programming languages research community, users of the language, and other sufficiently interested people. I didn't think to qualify it by citing the relevant papers partly because the fact is well-known, partly because the fact is easily researched, and partly because this is an informal conversation where you don't always need to bring primary evidence simply to talk to people. Just because you were not aware of this fact didn't grant you license to be so dismissive at the start. Your first interaction with me was a stern, corrective "No it isn't". You were wrong, but worse than that, you were authoritative in your wrongness. If you had just asked me to explain what I meant instead of trying to correct me, this conversation could've gone differently. Now, maybe I've misread your tone, in which case I genuinely apologize. But the certainty with which you made your incorrect statements at the beginning, followed by your kind-of condescending interactions with me in the comments since then, makes me think I am right in my interpretation, and I think that's really unfortunate.
      - foverzar 3y ago
        > I feel like you're being sassy with me I am honestly not. Please don't read too much into my tone, English is not my native language. It actually wasn't clear why you've mentioned types theory initially, the semantics of "expressive types" confused me a bit, but I upvoted your latter post where you elaborated.