zlacker

>>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.

>>Pragma+b8
Fwiw, the original article/email is less about "Rust has unsafe" and more about "panicking/crashing to avoid triggering UB isn't a viable strategy in the kernel."

>>oconno+Ho
it might be in a virtualized/development env. but otherwise that's why all those defensive coding practices are recommended in low-level code. to deal with this.