kzhukov

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by kzhukov 5y ago

   Well, for some people loading an arbitrary binary code without possibility to check what's inside it is a critical security issue as well.
2. 2.▲
   by kzhukov 5y ago

   That were just the examples when Rust is not really suitable as a drop-in replacement for C/C++. Of course, if your platform is well-supported by Rust compiler and you don't have to write safety critical applications, then using R
3. 3.▲
   by kzhukov 5y ago

   > safety-critical applications Nope, Rust is also not suitable for these tasks since it doesn't have a certified toolchain (e.g. ISO26262 for automotive or DO-178 for aerospace). > embedded Current LLVM-based compiler lacks suppo
4. 4.▲
   by kzhukov 6y ago

   Security is not a feature of the language or tool. Neither Rust nor C++ are fully secured even though the former could find more memory safety problems at compile time (but not all of them). Security is the process. It contains continuous r
5. 5.▲
   by kzhukov 6y ago

   What I don't really like in cargo is its' overcentralized and author-centric approach. What if some of your dependencies relies on the crate, which author doesn't support anymore and doesn't even accept patches? You will
6. 6.▲
   by kzhukov 6y ago

   There are fields such as automotive and aerospace where absence of Rust's standard is a showstopper for using Rust. Those areas require that all tools that are being used to build software must be certified (ISO 26262 for automotive fo