3 ms·

I think that legitimate real world issues in rust code should be talked about more often. Right now the language enjoys a reputation that is essentiaöly mislead

by gmueckl 6mo ago

I think that legitimate real world issues in rust code should be talked about more often. Right now the language enjoys a reputation that is essentiaöly misleading marketing. It isn't possible to create a programing language that doesn't allow bugs to happen (even with formal verification you can still prove correctness based on a wrong set of assumptions). This weird, kind of religious belief that rust leads to magically completely bug free programs needs to be countered and brought in touch with reality IMO.

testdelacc1 6mo ago
Is it possible you’ve misunderstood what Rust promises? > It isn't possible to create a programing language that doesn't allow bugs to happen Yes, that’s true. No one doubts this. Except you seem to think that Rust promises no bugs at all? I don’t know where you got this impression from, but it is incorrect. Rust promises that certain kinds of bugs like use-after-free are much, much less likely. It eliminates some kinds of bugs, not all bugs altogether. It’s possible that you’ve read the claim on kinds of bugs, and misinterpreted it as all bugs. I’ve had this conversation before, and it usually ends like https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah
- adrian_b 6mo ago
  "Rust" obviously does not promise that. On the other hand, there are too many less-experienced Rust fans who do claim that "Rust" promises this and that any project that does not use Rust is doomed and that any of the existing decades-old software projects should be rewritten in Rust to decrease the chances that they may have bugs. What is described in TFA is not surprising at all, because it is exactly what has been predicted about this and other similar projects. Anyone who desires to rewrite in Rust any old project, should certainly do it. It will be at least a good learning experience and whenever an ancient project is rewritten from scratch, the current knowledge should enable the creation of something better than the original. Nonetheless, the rewriters should never claim that what they have just produced has currently less bugs than the original, because neither they nor Rust can guarantee this, but only a long experience with using the rewritten application. Such rewritten software packages should remain for years as optional alternatives to the originals. Any aggressive push to substitute the originals immediately is just stupid (and yes, I have seen people trying to promote this). Moreover, someone who proposes the substitution of something as basic as coreutils, must first present to the world the results of a huge set of correctness tests and performance benchmarks comparing the old package with the new package, before the substitution idea is even put forward.
  - testdelacc1 6mo ago
    Where are these rust fans? Are they in the room with us right now? You’ve constructed a strawman with no basis in reality. You know what actual Rust fans sound like? They sound like Matthias Endler, who wrote the article we’re discussing. Matthias hosts a popular podcast Rust in Production where talks with people about sharp edges and difficulties they experienced using Rust. A true Rust advocate like him writes articles titled “Bugs Rust Won’t Catch”. > Such rewritten software packages should remain for years as optional alternatives to the originals. This project was started a decade ago. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7882211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7882211) > must first present to the world the results of a huge set of correctness tests and performance benchmarks Yeah, you can see those in https://github.com/uutils/coreutils https://github.com/uutils/coreutils. This project has also worked with GNU coreutils maintainers to add more tests over time. Check out the graph where the total number of tests increases over time. > before the substitution idea is even put forward I partly agree. But notice that these CVEs come from a thorough security audit paid for by Canonical. Canonical is paying for it because they have a plan to substitute in the immediate future. Without a plan to substitute it’s hard to advocate for funding. Without funding it’s hard to find and fix these issues. With these issues unfixed it’s hard to plan to substitute. Chicken and egg problem. > less bugs Fewer.
    - adrian_b 6mo ago
      Those Rust fans exist on almost all Internet forums that I have seen, including on HN. I do not care about what they say, so I have not made a list with links to what they have posted. But even only on HN, I certainly have seen much more than one hundred of such postings, more likely at least several hundreds, even on threads that did not have any close relationship with Rust, so there was no reason to discuss Rust. Since the shameless promotion with false claims of Java by Sun, during the last years of the previous century, there has not been any other programming language affected by such a hype campaign. I think that this is sad. Rust has introduced a few valid innovations and it is a decent programming language. Despite this, whenever someone starts mentioning Rust, my first reaction is to distrust whatever is said, until proven otherwise, because I have seen far too many ridiculous claims about Rust.
- gmueckl 6mo ago
  I understand the (narrow) hard guarantees that rust gives. But there there are people in the wider community who think that the guarantees are much, much broader. This is a pretty widespread misconception that should get be rectified.
  - testdelacc1 6mo ago
    Who are these people? Care to share examples? Because all I see are examples of people claiming it happens all the time. Not the examples of it actually happening.
jeroenhd 6mo ago
Nobody believes Rust programs are but free, though. Rust never promised that. It doesn't even promise memory safety, it only promises memory safety if you restrict yourself to safe APIs which simply isn't always possible.
- Galanwe 6mo ago
  > it only promises memory safety if you restrict yourself to safe APIs which simply isn't always possible. Less than that actually, considering Rust has its own definition of what "safe" means.
  - user_of_the_wek 6mo ago
    Ah, the Dwarf Fortress approach :) https://dwarffortresswiki.org/DF2014:Fun&redirect=no https://dwarffortresswiki.org/DF2014:Fun&redirect=no
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
  The NSA believe it's a memory safe language.
  - compass_copium 6mo ago
    Or... the NSA wants you to think the NSA believes that rust is a memory safe language.
    - kibwen 6mo ago
      Or... the NSA wants you to think that the NSA wants you to think that the NSA believes that Rust is a memory-safe language, so that everyone who distrusts the NSA keeps using C.
School-Cotton 6mo ago
I have never seen a comment claiming that Rust leads to magically completely bug free programs. Could you please link one? Because I doubt it exists, or if it does, it is probably on some obscure website or downvoted to oblivion. On the other hand, I see comments in every Rust thread that are basically restatements of yours attacking a strawman. The reality: Rust does not prevent all bugs. In fact, it doesn't even prevent any bugs. What it actually does is make a certain particularly common and dangerous class of bugs much more difficult to write.

by gmueckl 6mo ago

testdelacc1 6mo ago

Is it possible you’ve misunderstood what Rust promises? > It isn't possible to create a programing language that doesn't allow bugs to happen Yes, that’s true. No one doubts this. Except you seem to think that Rust promises no bugs at all? I don’t know where you got this impression from, but it is incorrect. Rust promises that certain kinds of bugs like use-after-free are much, much less likely. It eliminates some kinds of bugs, not all bugs altogether. It’s possible that you’ve read the claim on kinds of bugs, and misinterpreted it as all bugs. I’ve had this conversation before, and it usually ends like https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

adrian_b 6mo ago
"Rust" obviously does not promise that. On the other hand, there are too many less-experienced Rust fans who do claim that "Rust" promises this and that any project that does not use Rust is doomed and that any of the existing decades-old software projects should be rewritten in Rust to decrease the chances that they may have bugs. What is described in TFA is not surprising at all, because it is exactly what has been predicted about this and other similar projects. Anyone who desires to rewrite in Rust any old project, should certainly do it. It will be at least a good learning experience and whenever an ancient project is rewritten from scratch, the current knowledge should enable the creation of something better than the original. Nonetheless, the rewriters should never claim that what they have just produced has currently less bugs than the original, because neither they nor Rust can guarantee this, but only a long experience with using the rewritten application. Such rewritten software packages should remain for years as optional alternatives to the originals. Any aggressive push to substitute the originals immediately is just stupid (and yes, I have seen people trying to promote this). Moreover, someone who proposes the substitution of something as basic as coreutils, must first present to the world the results of a huge set of correctness tests and performance benchmarks comparing the old package with the new package, before the substitution idea is even put forward.
- testdelacc1 6mo ago
  Where are these rust fans? Are they in the room with us right now? You’ve constructed a strawman with no basis in reality. You know what actual Rust fans sound like? They sound like Matthias Endler, who wrote the article we’re discussing. Matthias hosts a popular podcast Rust in Production where talks with people about sharp edges and difficulties they experienced using Rust. A true Rust advocate like him writes articles titled “Bugs Rust Won’t Catch”. > Such rewritten software packages should remain for years as optional alternatives to the originals. This project was started a decade ago. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7882211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7882211) > must first present to the world the results of a huge set of correctness tests and performance benchmarks Yeah, you can see those in https://github.com/uutils/coreutils https://github.com/uutils/coreutils. This project has also worked with GNU coreutils maintainers to add more tests over time. Check out the graph where the total number of tests increases over time. > before the substitution idea is even put forward I partly agree. But notice that these CVEs come from a thorough security audit paid for by Canonical. Canonical is paying for it because they have a plan to substitute in the immediate future. Without a plan to substitute it’s hard to advocate for funding. Without funding it’s hard to find and fix these issues. With these issues unfixed it’s hard to plan to substitute. Chicken and egg problem. > less bugs Fewer.
  - adrian_b 6mo ago
    Those Rust fans exist on almost all Internet forums that I have seen, including on HN. I do not care about what they say, so I have not made a list with links to what they have posted. But even only on HN, I certainly have seen much more than one hundred of such postings, more likely at least several hundreds, even on threads that did not have any close relationship with Rust, so there was no reason to discuss Rust. Since the shameless promotion with false claims of Java by Sun, during the last years of the previous century, there has not been any other programming language affected by such a hype campaign. I think that this is sad. Rust has introduced a few valid innovations and it is a decent programming language. Despite this, whenever someone starts mentioning Rust, my first reaction is to distrust whatever is said, until proven otherwise, because I have seen far too many ridiculous claims about Rust.
gmueckl 6mo ago
I understand the (narrow) hard guarantees that rust gives. But there there are people in the wider community who think that the guarantees are much, much broader. This is a pretty widespread misconception that should get be rectified.
- testdelacc1 6mo ago
  Who are these people? Care to share examples? Because all I see are examples of people claiming it happens all the time. Not the examples of it actually happening.

jeroenhd 6mo ago

Nobody believes Rust programs are but free, though. Rust never promised that. It doesn't even promise memory safety, it only promises memory safety if you restrict yourself to safe APIs which simply isn't always possible.

Galanwe 6mo ago
> it only promises memory safety if you restrict yourself to safe APIs which simply isn't always possible. Less than that actually, considering Rust has its own definition of what "safe" means.
- user_of_the_wek 6mo ago
  Ah, the Dwarf Fortress approach :) https://dwarffortresswiki.org/DF2014:Fun&redirect=no https://dwarffortresswiki.org/DF2014:Fun&redirect=no
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
The NSA believe it's a memory safe language.
- compass_copium 6mo ago
  Or... the NSA wants you to think the NSA believes that rust is a memory safe language.
  - kibwen 6mo ago
    Or... the NSA wants you to think that the NSA wants you to think that the NSA believes that Rust is a memory-safe language, so that everyone who distrusts the NSA keeps using C.

School-Cotton 6mo ago

I have never seen a comment claiming that Rust leads to magically completely bug free programs. Could you please link one? Because I doubt it exists, or if it does, it is probably on some obscure website or downvoted to oblivion. On the other hand, I see comments in every Rust thread that are basically restatements of yours attacking a strawman. The reality: Rust does not prevent all bugs. In fact, it doesn't even prevent any bugs. What it actually does is make a certain particularly common and dangerous class of bugs much more difficult to write.