zlacker

[return to "“Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety"]
1. Pragma+b8[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:12:48
>>rvz+(OP)
I’ve been using Rust for a while, and I’m so, so tired of hearing this argument.

Yes, we know. We get it. Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs. This is obvious and well-known to anyone actually using Rust.

At this point, the argument feels like some sort of ideological debate happening outside the realm of actually getting work done. It feels like any time someone says that Rust defends against certain types of safety errors, someone feels obligated to pop out of the background and remind everyone that it doesn’t protect against every code safety issue.

◧◩
2. flohof+Wb[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:35:06
>>Pragma+b8
> Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs.

That's not exactly the vibe I'm getting from the typical Rust fanboys popping up whenever there's another CVE caused by the usage of C or C++ though ;)

Rust does seem to attract the same sort of insufferable personalities that have been so typical for C++ in the past. Why that is, I have no idea.

◧◩◪
3. lucasy+Nc[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:40:06
>>flohof+Wb
It protects against the leading 70 percent of CVEs, which are due to memory safety issues. This is all Rust has ever claimed to solve and it's all I've ever seen anyone cite when advocating for it.

If these people are insufferable to you, that I can't change your mind on. That said you might want to get used to it since major areas of industry are already considering C/C++ as deprecated (a paraphrasing from the Azure CTO recently)

[go to top]