Comment by p-e-w

Comment by p-e-w 3 days ago

That's such a weird disclaimer, considering that an overwhelming majority of mission-critical software is written entirely in "unsafe" code (that is, C/C++).

"Please be cautious about using Linux/macOS/Windows/Firefox/Chrome/Safari in adversarial conditions." I've never read a statement like that, even though it would be more warranted than in this case.

And even unsafe Rust is far safer than C and C++. It still provides automatic memory management by default, the thread safety guarantees that come with ownership, and abstraction mechanics that make it harder to commit blunders that can lead to unsafety.

oguz-ismail 3 days ago

Those are well-established languages. Rust's only selling point is its alleged safety

Reply View 2 replies

johannes1234321 3 days ago

Marking code as unsafe in Rust is the escape hatch to do optimisations and reaching out to other systems. It draws the attention to that area for audits and allows building safer stuff atop.
In another language, like C, you can have a good structure and well organized attractions, but you have your "unsafe" potentially sprinkled all over.

Reply View | 0 replies
p-e-w 3 days ago

Rust is pretty well-established now, being used in production by companies like Amazon. Safety is most certainly not its "only selling point". And the underlying mechanisms have been evaluated in detail by many researchers, both theoretically and practically, so labeling it as "alleged safety" is disingenuous.

Reply View | 0 replies