▲ | MBCook 5 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Just using Rust will not magically make your application safe; it will just make it a lot harder to have memory leaks or safety issues. Even if we take this claim at face value, isn’t that great? Memory safety is a HUGE source of bugs and security issues. So the author is hand-waving away a really really good reason to use Rust (or other memory safe by default language). Overall I agree this seems a lot like “I like C++and I’m good at it so it’s fine” with justifications created from there. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | jandrewrogers 5 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think this is a case of two distinct populations being inappropriately averaged. There are many high-level C++ applications that would probably be best implemented in a modern GC language. We could skip the systems language discussion entirely because it is weird that we are using one. There are also low-level applications like high-performance database kernels where the memory management models are so different that conventional memory safety assumptions don’t apply. Also, their performance is incredibly tightly coupled to the precision of their safety models. It is no accident that these have proven to be memory safe in practice; they would not be usable if they weren’t. A lot of new C++ usage is in these areas. Rust to me slots in as a way to materially improve performance for applications that might otherwise be well-served by Java. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|