3 ms·

> I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe languages As far as i read on HN, the only memory safe language discused on HN is rust and mostly w

by hulitu 1y ago

> I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe languages As far as i read on HN, the only memory safe language discused on HN is rust and mostly with childish pro arguments.

zozbot234 1y ago
Java and C# are memory safe languages, as are common interpreted languages like Python and Ruby. Even JavaScript is memory safe, barring the possibility of subtle JIT bugs that may practically impact such safety.
- kaoD 1y ago
  But op means memory and data safe, without a GC nor a runtime, so it can be used as a systems programming language. For "some reason" people only talk about Rust in this space!
  - zozbot234 1y ago
    Swift is also memory safe in that sense.
    - hypeatei 1y ago
      Swift uses Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) which is a form of garbage collection.
      - kaoD 1y ago
        Now I'm curious, how does it GC cycles, if at all? EDIT: from a brief search: it doesn't.
      - kaoD 1y ago
        Not sure why you're downvoted, RC is definitely a form of GC even if not a tracing GC.
    - rs186 1y ago
      It has a gc in the general sense of that term.
  - JuniperMesos 1y ago
    There are currently no widely-used programming languages other than Rust that offer the memory safety guarantees Rust has without a garbage collector. I think this is bad, and I wish more people would develop memory-safe systems languages that explore other parts of the design space like Rust does. But in the meantime, Rust is pretty good, certainly preferable to C or C++.
- egorfine 1y ago
  Even modern C++ is memory safe when used properly.
  - ameliaquining 1y ago
    By that definition, all languages are "memory safe when used properly".
    - egorfine 1y ago
      Well. Yes. Lol
      - modulared 1y ago
        That doesn't really make sense since memory safety is a property of a language. You can have code that is unsafe (read unsound), but that is a separate issue. For a language to be memory safe it means there must be no way to mishandle a function or use some object wrong that would result in an "unsafe" operation (for Rust, that means undefined behavior). That is to say the default is safe, and you are given an escape hatch. While in something like c/c++ the default is unsafe. I'd also like to add that program correctness is another separate concept from language safety and code safety, since you could be using an unsafe language writing unsafe ub code and still have a correct binary.

by hulitu 1y ago

> I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe languages As far as i read on HN, the only memory safe language discused on HN is rust and mostly with childish pro arguments.

zozbot234 1y ago

Java and C# are memory safe languages, as are common interpreted languages like Python and Ruby. Even JavaScript is memory safe, barring the possibility of subtle JIT bugs that may practically impact such safety.

kaoD 1y ago
But op means memory and data safe, without a GC nor a runtime, so it can be used as a systems programming language. For "some reason" people only talk about Rust in this space!
- zozbot234 1y ago
  Swift is also memory safe in that sense.
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    Swift uses Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) which is a form of garbage collection.
    - kaoD 1y ago
      Now I'm curious, how does it GC cycles, if at all? EDIT: from a brief search: it doesn't.
    - kaoD 1y ago
      Not sure why you're downvoted, RC is definitely a form of GC even if not a tracing GC.
  - rs186 1y ago
    It has a gc in the general sense of that term.
- JuniperMesos 1y ago
  There are currently no widely-used programming languages other than Rust that offer the memory safety guarantees Rust has without a garbage collector. I think this is bad, and I wish more people would develop memory-safe systems languages that explore other parts of the design space like Rust does. But in the meantime, Rust is pretty good, certainly preferable to C or C++.
egorfine 1y ago
Even modern C++ is memory safe when used properly.
- ameliaquining 1y ago
  By that definition, all languages are "memory safe when used properly".
  - egorfine 1y ago
    Well. Yes. Lol
    - modulared 1y ago
      That doesn't really make sense since memory safety is a property of a language. You can have code that is unsafe (read unsound), but that is a separate issue. For a language to be memory safe it means there must be no way to mishandle a function or use some object wrong that would result in an "unsafe" operation (for Rust, that means undefined behavior). That is to say the default is safe, and you are given an escape hatch. While in something like c/c++ the default is unsafe. I'd also like to add that program correctness is another separate concept from language safety and code safety, since you could be using an unsafe language writing unsafe ub code and still have a correct binary.