Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe Systems Programming

Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by staticassertion on Saturday June 13, 2020 @03:14PM (#23511876)

> The whole selling point of Rust is that it's supposed to let you write provably safe code.

I disagree. A significant purpose of rust is to encapsulate unsafe code, and provide safe abstractions. Lots of unsafe code is safe - most of it, even, I'd bet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by nilkn on Saturday June 13, 2020 @03:23PM (#23511942)

> Lots of unsafe code is safe

I mean this with the greatest possible respect, but you replied by simply restating verbatim the quote that I originally responded to, so I'll just point you to my previous post.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by SAI_Peregrinus on Saturday June 13, 2020 @03:54PM (#23512181)

`unsafe` the keyword vs unsafe the concept. Lots of `unsafe` code is safe when used through a safe wrapper. Verifying that is the duty of the programmer. The compiler can't prove it, but quite often the programmer can.

IMO it's good practice to provide a comment with such proof for every `unsafe` block.

So `unsafe` does not imply unsound, but unsound does imply `unsafe`.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by staticassertion on Saturday June 13, 2020 @04:30PM (#23512425)

This is what I was trying to say. Unsafe doesn't imply exploitability, at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by staticassertion on Saturday June 13, 2020 @03:25PM (#23511958)

Sorry if I misunderstood your post then.

[ Parent | on HN ]