3 ms·
> If Rust can't handle that safely (not Rust "safe", but safely), it isn't appropriate for the job. Rust is no less safe at C interop than using C directly.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> If Rust can't handle that safely (not Rust "safe", but safely), it isn't appropriate for the job.
Rust is no less safe at C interop than using C directly.
- hirvi74 10mo ago(Not the user you were replying to) If Rust is no less safe than C in such a regard, then what benefit is Rust providing that C could not? I am genuinely curious because OS development is not my forte. I assume the justification to implement Rust must be contingent on more than Rust just being 'newer = better', right?
- gf000 10mo agoIt's not less safe in C interop. It is significantly safer at everything else.
- smj-edison 10mo agoAs long as you keep C pointers as pointers. The mutable aliasing rules can bite you though.