Comparing Parallel Rust and C++

Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by FpUser on Thursday November 07, 2019 @11:42AM (#21474757)

I can not be responsible for however said highly attacked systems were designed and hence can not judge.

In my own cases I use proprietary protocols for client-server communications that more or less ensure that memory bounds are not broken.

Of course attackers might be able to punch holes in lower layers ( UDP for example ) over which I have no direct control but in this case Rust would use the same UDP stack and offer no advantage.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by mcqueenjordan on Thursday November 07, 2019 @12:27PM (#21475167)

I’m glad to hear that your code is unbreakable and without any bugs, but pcwalton’s claim is still absolutely correct.

> This is empirically not true. Tons of memory safety issues are found (and exploited) all the time in modern idiomatic C++ codebases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++ by FpUser on Thursday November 07, 2019 @12:36PM (#21475253)

"I’m glad to hear that your code is unbreakable and without any bugs, but pcwalton’s claim is still absolutely correct"

I smell sarcasm here. I do not claim my code to be unbreakable. I do believe it is REASONABLY safe by design. pcwalton's claim is generic claim about generic code that may have no relevance to particular situations. Mine for example

[ Parent | on HN ]