3 ms·

Rust has memory safety by default. However, it can do memory unsafe things in special blocks[1]. So it can do everything low level that C can, including control

by DCKing 12y ago

Rust has memory safety by default. However, it can do memory unsafe things in special blocks[1]. So it can do everything low level that C can, including controlling memory hardware [2]. It does unsafe things only in special blocks that can be specifically audited. That's part of why I find it so promising. C has no memory safety by default. So if you want to audit your C program for memory safety problems, those problems can be anywhere. Even if that C program/component doesn't actually need such low level access in the first place! [1]: http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/rust.html#unsafety http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/rust.html#unsafety [2]: Here's a list of (hobby) kernels written in Rust: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Operating-system-development https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Operating-system-develo...

gkya 12y ago
Everytime I say something negative about Rust, the counterarguments push me to learn the language. I'll definitely check out the kernels page, thanks a lot for that. With your comments I have to concur. I have also read a comment on name-mangling somewhere on this thread, probably one that you've written. If C can be replaced with Rust for most-if-not-all applications in future, it is a step forwards IMO.
- jnbiche 12y ago
  In my opinion, your argument about only C being usable from FFI is a strong one against using Rust if you're making a library. It is possible to expose Rust data and functions to Python, Ruby, etc, since Rust is ABI-compatible with C. Unfortunately, you lose most of the Rust standard library since the Rust runtime is not freestanding. And I'm not sure how -- or if -- Rust will fix this issue. It's certainly desired, but it will be a lot of work. The only bright side to all of this is that Rust is such a modern and pleasant language to use that scripting language bindings are almost not needed. Almost. But it's still a enough of a low-level language that bindings are highly desirable for quick prototypes, exploratory programming, and other scripting tasks.
  - kibwen 12y ago
    > I'm not sure how -- or if -- Rust will fix this issue. We're addressing this as we speak! We've split out the stdlib into many constituent libraries that depend on each other, and then just made the stdlib a convenient facade for these libraries. After opting out of the stdlib, you can then opt into any of the "core" libraries as you like, a la carte. Many of these smaller libs don't rely on the runtime (they don't depend on librustrt) nor do they rely on allocation at all (liballoc), and can thus be used in a freestanding environment. See the other comment in this thread for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7883451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7883451
    - jnbiche 12y ago
      Oh wow, that's great to hear. Any idea when/if basic, safe network/file IO will be possible without the runtime? Or is it already?

by DCKing 12y ago

gkya 12y ago

Everytime I say something negative about Rust, the counterarguments push me to learn the language. I'll definitely check out the kernels page, thanks a lot for that. With your comments I have to concur. I have also read a comment on name-mangling somewhere on this thread, probably one that you've written. If C can be replaced with Rust for most-if-not-all applications in future, it is a step forwards IMO.

jnbiche 12y ago
In my opinion, your argument about only C being usable from FFI is a strong one against using Rust if you're making a library. It is possible to expose Rust data and functions to Python, Ruby, etc, since Rust is ABI-compatible with C. Unfortunately, you lose most of the Rust standard library since the Rust runtime is not freestanding. And I'm not sure how -- or if -- Rust will fix this issue. It's certainly desired, but it will be a lot of work. The only bright side to all of this is that Rust is such a modern and pleasant language to use that scripting language bindings are almost not needed. Almost. But it's still a enough of a low-level language that bindings are highly desirable for quick prototypes, exploratory programming, and other scripting tasks.
- kibwen 12y ago
  > I'm not sure how -- or if -- Rust will fix this issue. We're addressing this as we speak! We've split out the stdlib into many constituent libraries that depend on each other, and then just made the stdlib a convenient facade for these libraries. After opting out of the stdlib, you can then opt into any of the "core" libraries as you like, a la carte. Many of these smaller libs don't rely on the runtime (they don't depend on librustrt) nor do they rely on allocation at all (liballoc), and can thus be used in a freestanding environment. See the other comment in this thread for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7883451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7883451
  - jnbiche 12y ago
    Oh wow, that's great to hear. Any idea when/if basic, safe network/file IO will be possible without the runtime? Or is it already?