3 ms·

> But I would argue there's no practical difference between "crash due to segfault" and "panic due to index overflow" Nope. If you're lucky, you get a segfault

> But I would argue there's no practical difference between "crash due to segfault" and "panic due to index overflow" Nope. If you're lucky, you get a segfault. > imagine you're making a game Actually, I would love to be making games. The benefits Rust provides aren't huge benefits in Game Dev, we get it. In fact, isn't this whole thing just a rehash of Jonathan Blow's ECS critique? But most of us aren't making games. Imagine instead you're a not making a game, and you see CVE after CVE because of memory safety. Customer data gets stolen, things like SSNs. People's lives are impacted. I suppose a game crash is annoying, but way less annoying than someone's/my personal info being leaked. Sure, we could go on as usual, blame "human error" and say everybody needs to do better. Or, we could accept better over perfect, and try to mitigate common errors that seem to happen often. You can still use `unsafe`. I guess by this argument, seat belts are useless, too, because they don't stop traffic fatalities completely. And so are all aviation safety improvements. We're still here having the "Rust offers no/marginal benefits (to game dev and other niches)". Ok.

OskarS 3y ago
I want to be clear: I think Rust offers ENORMOUS security benefits over C. No one is disputing that. I personally love Rust, I think it's a great language. This is not an attack on the language, this is an observation that if you use this particular pattern (indexes instead of pointers), you are doing something dangerous, and you can no longer rely on the borrow checker to validate lifetimes. It seems to me to be a pretty unarguable point. It's frankly a bit shocking to me to see this vehement of a disagreement.
- gpderetta 3y ago
  I think we are all in strong agreement, the only disagreement is on the level of badness of the issue :)
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    I think there are security vulnerabilities I’ve read about Mach that stem from tricking the kernel into accessing an object as the wrong type. This kind of type confusion would be possible if you had a heterogenous container and had stale index references.

OskarS 3y ago

I want to be clear: I think Rust offers ENORMOUS security benefits over C. No one is disputing that. I personally love Rust, I think it's a great language. This is not an attack on the language, this is an observation that if you use this particular pattern (indexes instead of pointers), you are doing something dangerous, and you can no longer rely on the borrow checker to validate lifetimes. It seems to me to be a pretty unarguable point. It's frankly a bit shocking to me to see this vehement of a disagreement.

gpderetta 3y ago
I think we are all in strong agreement, the only disagreement is on the level of badness of the issue :)
- vlovich123 3y ago
  I think there are security vulnerabilities I’ve read about Mach that stem from tricking the kernel into accessing an object as the wrong type. This kind of type confusion would be possible if you had a heterogenous container and had stale index references.