3 ms·

Actix was chalk full of not just unnecessary, but showably unsound usages of unsafe. And then resisted fixing it, and then after another review months later was

Actix was chalk full of not just unnecessary, but showably unsound usages of unsafe. And then resisted fixing it, and then after another review months later was found to still contain such deficits. Which, ironically, would have been even worse, written with the same level of care, in C.

c_crank 3y ago
"This Haskell program was chalk full of not just unnecessary, but showably unsound uses of UnsafePerformIO..." The language lets people write code that way if they wish. Why are Rust people so aggressive about that?
- predictabl3 3y ago
  Who? Aggressive about what? Do you get this offended when someone points out obvious bugs and security holes in your C code? What do you expect to happen? The community of people who care about safe systems programming to go "oh yeah it's totally fine that a growing library is full of unnecessary and buggy uses of a language feature"? Take a step back, yeesh. You're just flailing now, and I think I'm going to let you do that by yourself.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    >Who? Aggressive about what? Rust 'community' (subreddit?) members, sending nasty messages to the Actix developer. It was pretty clear the Actix developer was interested in making a fast, dependable web server that was especially good on benchmarks. If the community was so incensed that he did not follow the idiomatic safety standards (that are a language feature rather than a requirement of use), they had a perfectly easy tool to solve the issue: forking the project, to make a Safe-Actix. Naturally, they did not do this, because most of them are more interested in this idea of 'safety' rather than good software. I don't get paid to write any C code, and I don't have much interest in benchmarking, myself, but if I did, I would also be annoyed if I had to deal with nasty comments or worse by a bunch of internet randos insisting I follow a vague standard that makes them feel important.

c_crank 3y ago

"This Haskell program was chalk full of not just unnecessary, but showably unsound uses of UnsafePerformIO..." The language lets people write code that way if they wish. Why are Rust people so aggressive about that?

predictabl3 3y ago
Who? Aggressive about what? Do you get this offended when someone points out obvious bugs and security holes in your C code? What do you expect to happen? The community of people who care about safe systems programming to go "oh yeah it's totally fine that a growing library is full of unnecessary and buggy uses of a language feature"? Take a step back, yeesh. You're just flailing now, and I think I'm going to let you do that by yourself.
- c_crank 3y ago
  >Who? Aggressive about what? Rust 'community' (subreddit?) members, sending nasty messages to the Actix developer. It was pretty clear the Actix developer was interested in making a fast, dependable web server that was especially good on benchmarks. If the community was so incensed that he did not follow the idiomatic safety standards (that are a language feature rather than a requirement of use), they had a perfectly easy tool to solve the issue: forking the project, to make a Safe-Actix. Naturally, they did not do this, because most of them are more interested in this idea of 'safety' rather than good software. I don't get paid to write any C code, and I don't have much interest in benchmarking, myself, but if I did, I would also be annoyed if I had to deal with nasty comments or worse by a bunch of internet randos insisting I follow a vague standard that makes them feel important.