News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pitfalls of Safe Rust by arccy on Sunday April 06, 2025 @04:30PM (#43604715)
I don't see why people would drop the "memory" part of "memory safe" and just promote the false advertising of "safe rust"
Re:Pitfalls of Safe Rust by an_ko on Sunday April 06, 2025 @05:38PM (#43605178)
It sounds like you should read the docs. It's just a subject-specific abbreviation, not an advertising trick.
Re:Pitfalls of Safe Rust by arccy on Sunday April 06, 2025 @06:37PM (#43605564)
but it is false advertising when it's used all over the internet with: rust is safe! telling the whole world to rtfm for your co-opting of the generic word "safe" is like advertisers telling you to read the fine print: a sleazy tactic.
Re:Pitfalls of Safe Rust by goku12 on Monday April 07, 2025 @12:56AM (#43607855)
It's not that either, and you are validating the GP's point. Rust has a very specific 'unsafe' keyword that every Rust developer interpret implicitly and instinctively as 'potentially memory-unsafe'. Consequently, 'safe' is interpreted as the opposite - 'guaranteed memory-safe'. Using that word as an abbreviation among Rust developers is therefore not uncommon.

However while speaking about Rust language in general, all half-decent Rust developers specify that it's about memory safety. Even the Rust language homepage has only two instances of the word - 'memory-safety' and 'thread-safety'. The accusations of sleaziness and false accusations is disingenuous at best.