Comment by androidcode
6 months ago
That argument can be applied to unsafe Rust as well. There are code reviews, coding standards and other checks for a reason.
Though, I suppose something like C++ profiles, just for modernization, might make it much easier to enforce and track that modern C++ is used.
The difference is that with Rust one can prevent unsafe in the compiler build settings.
Or any language with unsafe code blocks, which people keep forgetting also exist, while complaining about Rust, as if there isn't any other memory safe language.
With C++ you need external tooling to disable C like code, that a large part of the community refuses to adopt.
Yes, so something like a modernization profile for C++ would make it easier to enforce, and would not require external tools. But it ultimately does not change that C++ is not C, and that the blog is deeply misleading. Nor does it change that Google Android source code appears to have significant issues.
> as if there isn't any other memory safe language.
But Rust is obviously not a memory safe programming language. Unsafe's prevalence and difficulty, no_std, and arguably also the bugs and holes in the type system of Rust that have not been fixed for many years by now, make this clear.
With that line of argumentation there are no safe languages, we should all go back to Assembly.
2 replies →
> But Rust is obviously not a memory safe programming language. Unsafe's prevalence and difficulty, no_std, and arguably also the bugs and holes in the type system of Rust that have not been fixed for many years by now, make this clear.
Everything else aside, why is no_std included here?
2 replies →