News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by bluGill on Thursday November 07, 2019 @08:37AM (#21473022)
Memory safety defects tend to manifest themselves in obvious ways. A few unit tests, and some work in memory sanitizes will find them.
Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by pcwalton on Thursday November 07, 2019 @10:27AM (#21474009)
This is empirically not true. A look through https://twitter.com/lazyfishbarrel confirms this.
Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by bluGill on Thursday November 07, 2019 @03:02PM (#21476776)
The exceptions tend to escape notice for years. They get a lot of attention (and are often really hard to fix unlike the early ones), but I stand by my statement: most are easily found and fixed - but they are also fixed early in development so you don't hear about them.
Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by RaleyField on Thursday November 07, 2019 @04:35PM (#21477552)
If it's so obvious then why am I receiving security patches for my Linux desktop almost every day?
Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by bluGill on Friday November 08, 2019 @08:02AM (#21481799)
Many reasons.

There is a long tail of exceptions to my statement, hard to find things that escape notice for years.

There are a lot of security issues that are not really memory safety as we are talking about here. (many are memory safety in a way that has nothing to do with getting your allocate/free wrong - using uninitialized memory for example). Some of them are subtle new attacks that were just discovered and now need to be mitigated.