4 ms·

I guess there could be more vocal zealots in the Rust Evangelism Strikeforce, but as a member myself I strongly disagree with the premise of the article. Rust i

I guess there could be more vocal zealots in the Rust Evangelism Strikeforce, but as a member myself I strongly disagree with the premise of the article. Rust is currently the only mainstream option for memory safe development with a focus on performant systems development. The latter emphasis being the primary motivator of people using C/++ in the first place. If you aren't particularly concerned about systems development or rubber-to-the-bare-metal performance then there are tons of options: managed languages. C#, Java, Go, etc. If the article is advocating for C/++, please, stop. The claim that there are some safe programs in the world of C is categorically false. [Edit] for example, as soon as you use glibc: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=glibc https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=glibc

bigstrat2003 3y ago
> The claim that there are some safe programs in the world of C is categorically false. I don't like the article either, but this is just as bad. It's using hyperbole to counter hyperbole. Of course there are some safe programs in the world of C. It's ridiculous to say that there doesn't exist even one program which is safe.
- zamalek 3y ago
  As-per my edit, simply by virtue of using glibc your program is no longer safe. Glibc has had vulnerabilities, and continues to do so (as unknown unknowns - just like all C software). If you're not using any stdlib then maybe.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    That's still a bad argument imo. By that logic there's pretty much no such thing as safe software, in any language. Even Rust links to glibc if you're using std on Linux, as far as I'm aware (you can use MUSL but afaik glibc is the default). Does that mean that there's no such thing as safe software in Rust? I agree that C has safety issues and we should move away from it. Heck, I'll go further: C is a bad language and the people defending its sharp edges (in particular around UB) have a weird Stockholm syndrome with their language of choice. But it is definitely not categorically untrue that safe C software exists, and I don't think that it helps to fight overly broad claims with overly broad claims.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

> The claim that there are some safe programs in the world of C is categorically false. I don't like the article either, but this is just as bad. It's using hyperbole to counter hyperbole. Of course there are some safe programs in the world of C. It's ridiculous to say that there doesn't exist even one program which is safe.

zamalek 3y ago
As-per my edit, simply by virtue of using glibc your program is no longer safe. Glibc has had vulnerabilities, and continues to do so (as unknown unknowns - just like all C software). If you're not using any stdlib then maybe.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  That's still a bad argument imo. By that logic there's pretty much no such thing as safe software, in any language. Even Rust links to glibc if you're using std on Linux, as far as I'm aware (you can use MUSL but afaik glibc is the default). Does that mean that there's no such thing as safe software in Rust? I agree that C has safety issues and we should move away from it. Heck, I'll go further: C is a bad language and the people defending its sharp edges (in particular around UB) have a weird Stockholm syndrome with their language of choice. But it is definitely not categorically untrue that safe C software exists, and I don't think that it helps to fight overly broad claims with overly broad claims.