3 ms·

This web server is probably awesome. However "memory-safe" isn't distinguishing within the Rust ecosystem. There's... a lot... of Rust web servers out there, al

This web server is probably awesome. However "memory-safe" isn't distinguishing within the Rust ecosystem. There's... a lot... of Rust web servers out there, all of which are presumably memory-safe, because Rust: https://github.com/flosse/rust-web-framework-comparison https://github.com/flosse/rust-web-framework-comparison How does Ferron distinguish itself from these? I didn't get that from skimming the landing page.

dorianniemiec 2y ago
Thank you! Many other web server written in Rust are memory-safe as well, because of Rust's borrow checker. I designed Ferron to be a general-purpose, standalone web server, just like NGINX or Caddy. It can even run PHP web applications (through FastCGI).
hnlmorg 2y ago
You’re right, but the state of play is even better than you suggest because there’s a lot of memory safe web servers outside of Rust too. Eg Go. And that’s not even counting all the webservers included as part of their backend frameworks in Python, node.js, Java, etc. web servers written in unsafe languages are really the minority but those that do exist are largely so heavily battle tested that a rewrite would likely introduce new sources of bugs (eg Apache and nginx). If there’s one domain that’s seen a lot of competition for security, it’s been web servers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnny22 2y ago
I was looking for a web server, not a web framework. A replacement for nginx and caddy, not something to build applications on thus I never would have thought about clicking on a link talking about web frameworks. Anybody have any suggestions beyond the one under discussion?
- adastra22 2y ago
  Did you click the link? Scroll down to “Server frameworks.”
  - johnny22 2y ago
    I don't want a "server framework" I want a server. OP actually built a server. I clicked through the first few and they talk about building applications with them. That is explicitly what I excluded.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      In many cases the difference is whether you write your configuration in a file with a '.yml' extension or a '.rs' extension. It does mean that you end up with per-app binaries, which is either a pro or a con depending on the use case.
      - johnny22 2y ago
        Can they do what caddy does or not without a turing complete language ? That is the question.
      - dorianniemiec 2y ago
        The web server that I am building uses YAML-format configuration.

dorianniemiec 2y ago

Thank you! Many other web server written in Rust are memory-safe as well, because of Rust's borrow checker. I designed Ferron to be a general-purpose, standalone web server, just like NGINX or Caddy. It can even run PHP web applications (through FastCGI).

hnlmorg 2y ago

You’re right, but the state of play is even better than you suggest because there’s a lot of memory safe web servers outside of Rust too. Eg Go. And that’s not even counting all the webservers included as part of their backend frameworks in Python, node.js, Java, etc. web servers written in unsafe languages are really the minority but those that do exist are largely so heavily battle tested that a rewrite would likely introduce new sources of bugs (eg Apache and nginx). If there’s one domain that’s seen a lot of competition for security, it’s been web servers.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

johnny22 2y ago

I was looking for a web server, not a web framework. A replacement for nginx and caddy, not something to build applications on thus I never would have thought about clicking on a link talking about web frameworks. Anybody have any suggestions beyond the one under discussion?

adastra22 2y ago
Did you click the link? Scroll down to “Server frameworks.”
- johnny22 2y ago
  I don't want a "server framework" I want a server. OP actually built a server. I clicked through the first few and they talk about building applications with them. That is explicitly what I excluded.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    In many cases the difference is whether you write your configuration in a file with a '.yml' extension or a '.rs' extension. It does mean that you end up with per-app binaries, which is either a pro or a con depending on the use case.
    - johnny22 2y ago
      Can they do what caddy does or not without a turing complete language ? That is the question.
    - dorianniemiec 2y ago
      The web server that I am building uses YAML-format configuration.