Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look

Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by zmanian on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @03:06PM (#9220438)

Rust is one of rare class of memory safe languages that are

- easily callable from other languages because of the C ABI

- runtime free and not Posix dependent

- portable across CPU architectures.

Rust will provide you memory safety where other languages can't even run.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by ngrilly on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @11:40AM (#9226242)

Rust is not "runtime free". Rust needs a "minimal runtime", as stated on the project home page. You need at least a memory allocator. Even C programs are usually linked to a runtime library (like glibc).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by Jweb_Guru on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @02:21PM (#9227552)

Rust is usable with an extremely minimal runtime that approximates having no runtime at all (with #[no_std]). There are a few intrinsics you have to define, but none of them involve memory allocation. It also has a core crate that does not expose anything that requires allocation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by ngrilly on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:38AM (#9257256)

Interesting! I was unaware of the existence of #[no_std]. My mistake. Thanks for putting it right :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by bjwbell on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @08:43PM (#9222775)

- easily call C libraries, practically trivial. I hated using the FFI's in Java & C#.

There's many things I don't like about rust but the above list make it very hard to beat.

[ Parent | on HN ]