8 ms·

I read the thread, and couldn't disagree more. > If Rust isn’t memory safe (because unsafe), and Zig isn’t (because uaf), then Fil-C isn't (because zunsafe_cal

I read the thread, and couldn't disagree more. > If Rust isn’t memory safe (because unsafe), and Zig isn’t (because uaf), then Fil-C isn't (because zunsafe_call/zunsafe_fast_call). Rust isn’t memory safe (because unsafe) isn't an argument anyone makes, it's that Rust that uses unsafe isn't memory safe! It's called `unsafe` for a reason dude, not even the Rust people think it's safe.

mirashii 1mo ago
> Rust isn’t memory safe (because unsafe) isn't an argument anyone makes This is an argument that Fil-C makes, by choosing a very specific definition of memory safety. It’s even stated explicitly in that tweet linked.
- ameliaquining 1mo ago
  What precisely is that definition of memory safety? I'm not sure I follow.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mirashii 1mo ago
    Probably the shortest statement of Filip's definition is at https://fil-c.org/invisicaps https://fil-c.org/invisicaps . There's a few other statements around HN and twitter, like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43195623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43195623 , and the recent GISMO talk But you can see in a number of his public comments statements that Rust is not memory safe by his definition because it has unsafe as an escape hatch. https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2079244258062766177 https://x.com/filpizlo/status/2079244258062766177 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49053608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49053608 as some examples.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]