Memory Safety is a Red Herring (steveklabnik.com)

submitted 11 months ago by lysdexic@programming.dev to c/rust@programming.dev

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] java@beehaw.org -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We're on a platform, where most posts are links to some blog post or something. So yes, it'd be nice to provide some info other than a generic title and stupid sarcastic comments. You could be useful, but you decided that'd be too much for effort, eh?

[-] towerful@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago

TL;DR:

I think that a focus on memory safe languages (MSLs) versus non memory-safe languages is a bit of a red herring. The actual distinction is slightly bigger than that: languages which have defined behavior by default, with a superset where undefined behavior is possible, vs languages which allow for undefined behavior anywhere in your program. Memory safety is an important aspect of this, but it is neccesary, not sufficient. Rust’s marketing has historically focused on memory safety, and I don’t think that was a bad choice, but I do wonder sometimes. Finally, I wonder about the future of the C++ successor langauges in the face of coming legislation around MSLs for government procurement.

You are the least friendly person I have come across from beehaw. You haven't engaged in good faith, probably haven't even opened the link, and you have immediately launched into personal attacks.

[-] java@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

I asked for details, but got an idiotic sarcastic reply instead. I haven't signed to be friendly with every moron I meet. If you're acting hostile, don't complain that you're getting the same treatment back.