6 ms·

Right but if you imported one of those crates, then your “safe” rust would have memory safety issues. So bam, you just introduced memory safety issues into you

by 3a2d29 4y ago

Right but if you imported one of those crates, then your “safe” rust would have memory safety issues. So bam, you just introduced memory safety issues into your web API. This is like a C++ dev using C++ and causing memory issues unnecessarily just because they don’t want to use a safe language. And Elixir has concurrency and memory safety and it’s guaranteed, so no package you import can violate it. Unlike rust, where you can use safe rust and think there’s no violation, but then use a crate and suddenly have memory unsafety and concurrency violations. These crates worries are wayyy better than normal C++, but they are terrible compared to any actually safe language.

josephcsible 4y ago
My program might also crash if there's a bug in the kernel's filesystem driver, but that's not my bug. And Elixir has FFI, which definitely lets you do unsafe stuff.
- 3a2d29 4y ago
  It’s not about crashing, it’s about exposing memory that could lead to security vulnerabilities. And FFI? As in the Unix extensions? That’s the operating systems calls, not the language. By that logic, python is as dangerous as C++. It’s crazy how so many people on this thread say rust is the only choice because of memory safety, and are now bending over backwards trying to claim memory safety is no big deal. So much so FFI is now being brought up smh.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    If "import ctypes;ctypes.string_at(0xdeadbeef)" in Python doesn't count as memory unsafety, then I don't see why the equivalent in Unsafe Rust would.
    - 3a2d29 4y ago
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        I am not a beginner. Those sorts of security vulnerabilities are possible in Python/Elixir/etc. In both Rust and Python/Elixir/etc., they're only possible when you do certain unusual things. You are claiming that the Rust way does count, but that the other languages' ways don't count, with no justification. Memory safety does matter. Rust is memory-safe and C++ is not, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

by 3a2d29 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

My program might also crash if there's a bug in the kernel's filesystem driver, but that's not my bug. And Elixir has FFI, which definitely lets you do unsafe stuff.

3a2d29 4y ago
It’s not about crashing, it’s about exposing memory that could lead to security vulnerabilities. And FFI? As in the Unix extensions? That’s the operating systems calls, not the language. By that logic, python is as dangerous as C++. It’s crazy how so many people on this thread say rust is the only choice because of memory safety, and are now bending over backwards trying to claim memory safety is no big deal. So much so FFI is now being brought up smh.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  If "import ctypes;ctypes.string_at(0xdeadbeef)" in Python doesn't count as memory unsafety, then I don't see why the equivalent in Unsafe Rust would.
  - 3a2d29 4y ago
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      I am not a beginner. Those sorts of security vulnerabilities are possible in Python/Elixir/etc. In both Rust and Python/Elixir/etc., they're only possible when you do certain unusual things. You are claiming that the Rust way does count, but that the other languages' ways don't count, with no justification. Memory safety does matter. Rust is memory-safe and C++ is not, so your conclusion doesn't follow.