3 ms·

> If a project in an unsafe language has ever had a memory bug (I'm looking at you, Bun), the maintainers objectively have a track record of not being capable o

by znkr 7mo ago

> If a project in an unsafe language has ever had a memory bug (I'm looking at you, Bun), the maintainers objectively have a track record of not being capable of manual memory management. You wouldn't put a person who has a track record of crashing busses at the wheel of a school bus. If you’re serious, you should stop using Rust (which happens to contain an unsafe language): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44800 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44800

g947o 7mo ago
Hmm... A bug report from near a decade ago, where the bug was fixed within days. Not sure what your point is. If anything, it shows how much Rust cares about memory safety, because elsewhere it wouldn't be a compiler bug in the first place.
- jmull 7mo ago
  > Not sure what your point is I’m not the previous poster but it seems pretty clear the point is to show how silly that absolutist pronouncement is.
  - MindSpunk 7mo ago
    Being so absolutist is silly but their counter argument is very weak. Can I invalidate any memory safe language by dredging up old bug reports? Java had a bug once I guess it's over, everyone back to C. The argument is so thin it's hard to tell what they're trying to say. It's just as reductive as the person they're replying to.
    - jmull 7mo ago
      > Being so absolutist is silly but their counter argument is very weak. The entire point is that being so absolutist is silly. The comment reflects the previous poster's logic back at them so they (or others) can hopefully see how little sense it makes. You seem to be trying to see some additional argument about rust being bad/invalid, but there isn't one... The reason that argument is, indeed, "very weak" and "so thin", as you say, is that it isn't even there at all.
      - Ygg2 7mo ago
        > The entire point is that being so absolutist is silly. You're misinterpreting what Rust people are telling you. - Rust is safe lang - Nah, C is safe if you're good - Rust evangelical gestures towards billions or CVEs brought on by overly-sure C programmers - Yeah, well, a version of Rust was unsafe for few months ten years ago. Besides Zig prevents more bugs than C and is the successor - Rust person points to Bun's abysmal record - Stop being absolutist. The issue is that in C or Zig few people can write mostly UB free code. In Rust anyone can write UB free code as long as they don't reach for unsafe.
        jmull 7mo ago
        It seems odd to me to put this much effort into misunderstanding what people are saying. You just end up talking past everyone, essentially talking to no one about nothing.
        Ygg2 7mo ago
        If it wasn't obvious from my ramble, Rust concerns are pragmatic, not absolutist. The only absolutism is that for memory safety to be truly upheld, you can't half-ass it (Zig) or ignore it (C). Some properties are like that.
ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
Just compare the Buns and Deno issue trackers. Bun is segfaults galore, I’ve stumbled upon them. In Deno they essentially only come from integrating with C and C++ libraries.

by znkr 7mo ago

g947o 7mo ago

Hmm... A bug report from near a decade ago, where the bug was fixed within days. Not sure what your point is. If anything, it shows how much Rust cares about memory safety, because elsewhere it wouldn't be a compiler bug in the first place.

jmull 7mo ago
> Not sure what your point is I’m not the previous poster but it seems pretty clear the point is to show how silly that absolutist pronouncement is.
- MindSpunk 7mo ago
  Being so absolutist is silly but their counter argument is very weak. Can I invalidate any memory safe language by dredging up old bug reports? Java had a bug once I guess it's over, everyone back to C. The argument is so thin it's hard to tell what they're trying to say. It's just as reductive as the person they're replying to.
  - jmull 7mo ago
    > Being so absolutist is silly but their counter argument is very weak. The entire point is that being so absolutist is silly. The comment reflects the previous poster's logic back at them so they (or others) can hopefully see how little sense it makes. You seem to be trying to see some additional argument about rust being bad/invalid, but there isn't one... The reason that argument is, indeed, "very weak" and "so thin", as you say, is that it isn't even there at all.
    - Ygg2 7mo ago
      > The entire point is that being so absolutist is silly. You're misinterpreting what Rust people are telling you. - Rust is safe lang - Nah, C is safe if you're good - Rust evangelical gestures towards billions or CVEs brought on by overly-sure C programmers - Yeah, well, a version of Rust was unsafe for few months ten years ago. Besides Zig prevents more bugs than C and is the successor - Rust person points to Bun's abysmal record - Stop being absolutist. The issue is that in C or Zig few people can write mostly UB free code. In Rust anyone can write UB free code as long as they don't reach for unsafe.
      - jmull 7mo ago
        It seems odd to me to put this much effort into misunderstanding what people are saying. You just end up talking past everyone, essentially talking to no one about nothing.
        Ygg2 7mo ago
        If it wasn't obvious from my ramble, Rust concerns are pragmatic, not absolutist. The only absolutism is that for memory safety to be truly upheld, you can't half-ass it (Zig) or ignore it (C). Some properties are like that.

ViewTrick1002 7mo ago

Just compare the Buns and Deno issue trackers. Bun is segfaults galore, I’ve stumbled upon them. In Deno they essentially only come from integrating with C and C++ libraries.