← Back to context

Comment by brandly

13 hours ago

Aren't the Rust unsafes a reflection of the Zig it was ported from? However now that you're working with Rust, you're in a position to continue improving and eliminating the unsafes.

5 comments

brandly

Reply
giancarlostoro  11 hours ago

Plus I seem to recall the Rust community solved this issue by making tooling that proofs if unsafe code is truly unsafe, I remember one of the concurrent frameworks got scanned and people freaked out, the creator was about to abandon ship entirely as a result, don't recall what fully came of it. Anyway my overall point being, if there's already tooling to find the truly unsafe / bad code, it might make fixing it simpler / quicker to accomplish.

  • tempest_  11 hours ago

    There is no Rust tooling that tells you if your unsafe code is shit or not. If there was you wouldn't need the unsafe stuff at all.

    The Actix web stuff was the maintainer using unsafe code to increase performance (iirc, it was a long time ago) in what was the most popular rust web frameworks at the time. It has since declined and been supplanted by other projects but the push was mainly a web framework shouldn't need so much unsafe. They eventually ceded the project to another maintainer and went off to work on something else.

    • bdelmas  2 hours ago

      Fuzzing can help with that. But it’s not only applicable to Rust.

      For Actix web he was using “unsafe” to increase performance. That doesn’t mean the code written was unsafe… The Rust community was turning to a cult on this topic when perfectly experienced C++ can write code would need the unsafe in Rust when they perfectly know the code isn’t. It’s good for the community to push people to avoid to use unsafe but not to that extend of drama and bullying…