Rust vs C Pitfalls

Re:Rust vs C Pitfalls by cesarb on Wednesday December 28, 2016 @05:13AM (#13269625)

Java's bad safety reputation comes mostly from the Java plugin, where many inventive ways to bypass its sandbox have been discovered. When used as a normal programming language, without depending on it for sandboxing (that is, when all code running in the JVM is trusted), its safety is quite good.

(Java also has a not so great reputation about speed. That one also comes from the Java plugin, which often took minutes to start up, while keeping the Netscape browser UI locked up.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust vs C Pitfalls by the_why_of_y on Wednesday December 28, 2016 @07:28AM (#13270070)

... and just to add to that, if you look at the other popular sandboxed client-side runtimes, i.e., Adobe Flash and various JavaScript-enabled browsers (all of them implemented in C++), you will find a similar number of critical vulnerabilities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust vs C Pitfalls by EugeneOZ on Wednesday December 28, 2016 @08:43AM (#13270368)

I see a lot of NPE in IntelliJ IDEA, especially EAPs. It's not browser's plugin.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust vs C Pitfalls by the8472 on Wednesday December 28, 2016 @09:11AM (#13270529)

NPEs are not a security issue in the same sense as a buffer overflow or null pointer dereference.

[ Parent | on HN ]