3 ms·
> Rust has shown that extensive safety checks can be applied at compile time with zero runtime overhead. at the cost of developing time and workarounds overhea
by 6P58r3MXJSLi 2mo ago
> Rust has shown that extensive safety checks can be applied at compile time with zero runtime overhead.
at the cost of developing time and workarounds overhead.
> And, if it's not possible to prove this statically - you should be heavily questioning the security of that code.
or that's exactly the compromise that allows you to develop that software
there is no 100% safety with zero overhead
it is not possible
- mejutoco 2mo agoThe claim was runtime cost > the competing language will have a runtime cost, which often is unacceptable. The problem you now mention > at the cost of developing time and workarounds overhead. Also happens with plain c and the "pay attention" method.
- 6P58r3MXJSLi 2mo ago> Also happens with plain c and the "pay attention" method. not really there are decades of well known practices to basically cover every possible scenario the point is Rust doesn't allow to write certain kinds of code or use certain patterns it's the cost of the boilerplate it's not that it is hard, it's that it is tedious and if we throw LLM at the problem, well, we're not talking about 100% safety anymore
- mejutoco 2mo ago> at the cost of developing time and workarounds overhead. Let me rephrase: you are saying that tedious following of best practices (using or not certain kinds of code or use or certain patterns) does not take extra time in c, but rust (compiler) not allowing to write certain kinds of code or use certain patterns does take extra time.