39 ms·
thats fine. you dont need to run static analysis on a quick program that you yourself write that, say, downloads a file off the internet and processes it, and
by throwawaymaths 2y ago
thats fine. you dont need to run static analysis on a quick program that you yourself write that, say, downloads a file off the internet and processes it, and you're the only consumer.
or a hpc workload for a physic simulation that gets run once on 400,000 cores, and if it doesnt crash on your test run it probably won't at scale.
if youre writing an OS, you will turn it on. in fact, even rust ecosystem suggests this as a strategy, for example, with MIRI.
- steveklabnik 2y ago(Miri is not static analysis)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwawaymaths 2y agothats besides the point. its a unit outside of the compiler that exists to give you extra safety checks.
- steveklabnik 2y agoYes, I do agree that it doesn't change the shape of things, I was just trying to clarify a little detail, not say that you're incorrect. I have my own feelings about this but they're not super straightforward.
- throwawaymaths 2y agothanks for clarifying.
- solidsnack9000 2y agoAre you going to write a "quick program" in C, though? That is what we are comparing to, when we consider kernel development. I wouldn't argue that Rust is a good replacement for Makefiles, shell build scripts, Python scripts... An amazing thing about Rust, though, is that you actually can write many "quick programs" -- application level programs -- and it's a reasonably good experience.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago> Are you going to write a "quick program" in C, though? of course not, for kernel development. and in those cases, you WILL statically analyze.
- solidsnack9000 2y agoBut then what is the disagreement here, with regard to Rust and kernel development?