Comment by danudey
6 months ago
Go look at the comments on any Phoronix article involving Rust in any way and you'll see that it's 80% rust haters making all the same arguments every Rust hater makes. You can implement the same safety features in C++ and assembly if you know what you're doing! You can still write bugs in Rust! I know someone who tried to learn rust and he accidentally deleted his home directory so everyone may as well stick to C!
It's all nonsense, but it would be hilarious if it weren't so ignorant.
The irony is that those haters have been doing the same speech since Ada, Modula-2 and Object Pascal early days.
Multics got an higher security score than UNIX, thanks to PL/I.
During the USENET flamewar days, they used to call programming with straightjacket languages.
Also note how proudly they keep digging out Brian Kerninghan complains against Pascal, that disregard the dialects have taken out those issues, and that while Pascal was designed for teaching, Modula-2 was already available, taking care of those pain points, designed for systems programming.
>It's all nonsense,
How is any of that wrong?
It's all correct and also pointless and irrelevant. It all boils down to "Rust doesn't fix every possible problem so why not stick with something that still has every possible problem?"
In other words, they're upset that a new thing isn't popular so they're trying to think of any argument against it, but none of their arguments are relevant. Yes, you can still write bugs in Rust; of course you can. What you can't do is write memory safety bugs in Rust, which are a huge proportion of security bugs that occur. Rust gives you a massive decrease in attack surface automatically.
This is ignoring the ecosystem, which is full of better tooling, better library packaging, better testing, and just in general an overall better language, but instead of trying to argue the language on its merits they're trying to argue that it's not perfect so why bother.
I've also heard the same arguments about C++; 'anything you can do in C++ you can do in C!', which is technically true but ignores the fact that if I want to do something C++ does it usually makes more sense to use C++ to do it rather than e.g. trying to hack the concept of objects, private methods, templates, etc. into C myself.
1. You don't know what you're doing - everyone makes mistakes.
2. You can still write bugs in Rust but the point is you are far less likely to.
Yeah but 1000x less mistake ????? I mean these people behind android project is atleast one of the better engineer but jesus christ if they can improve so much then I dont know how much average joe can benefit from that
1 reply →
>You don't know what you're doing - everyone makes mistakes.
I mean if you don't know what you are doing you are going to make mistakes that go beyond memory safety. Look at Log4shell for example.
1 reply →
On the sense that you can write a Rust compiler in C and use it to program your software in a better language, yes, all of that is correct.
It isn’t wrong, it’s misguided. You can write the same code in a Turing machine, too.
Sure, but the discussion against Rust is basically saying that you can have the same features without the downsides of using Rust, which is objectively true. For example, memory analyzers like valgrind work great.
1 reply →