Re:What it feels like when Rust saves your bacon
by proto_lambda on Friday June 24, 2022 @05:13AM
(#31859376)
> The thing they rewrote also worked great in production.
It didn't for them, that's why they rewrote it.
> Rust is being sold as magically making software safe and people selling that completely ignore the fact that logical bugs are also a thing.
By whom? I don't think memory safety bugs are the only class of bugs, and neither do you, so who are you arguing against?
> Which Rust evangelists find difficult to acknowledge because security is that one thing that Rust has going for it.
Hard disagree. Rust also offers a solid type system, pain-free dependency management and all-around good tooling, just to name a few. It's much more than a "memory-safe C++" or whatever.
> And when processing arbitrary user output, it'll crash badly
If your definition of "badly" is "at a well-defined point, without any memory corruption", sure. But even here memory safety prevents what could be a much more painful debugging experience.
It didn't for them, that's why they rewrote it.
> Rust is being sold as magically making software safe and people selling that completely ignore the fact that logical bugs are also a thing.
By whom? I don't think memory safety bugs are the only class of bugs, and neither do you, so who are you arguing against?
> Which Rust evangelists find difficult to acknowledge because security is that one thing that Rust has going for it.
Hard disagree. Rust also offers a solid type system, pain-free dependency management and all-around good tooling, just to name a few. It's much more than a "memory-safe C++" or whatever.
> And when processing arbitrary user output, it'll crash badly
If your definition of "badly" is "at a well-defined point, without any memory corruption", sure. But even here memory safety prevents what could be a much more painful debugging experience.