Any word on how much more memory safe the implementation is? If passing a previous test suite is the criteria for success, what has changed, really? Are there previous memory safety tests that went from failing to passing?

I am very interested to know if this time and energy spent actually improved memory safety.

Other engineers facing the same challenges want to know!

▲

Retr0id 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the previous impl had known memory safety issues I'd imagine they'd fix them as a matter of priority. It's hard to test for memory safety issues you don't know about.

On the rust side, the question is how much `unsafe` they used (I would hope none at all, although they don't specify).

	▲	estebank 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You can look: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/pull/8104/files?... It seems like it is used mostly for FFI.
	▲	MontagFTB 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It is entirely possible a Rust port could have caught previously unknown memory safety issues. Furthermore, a Rust port that looks and feels like C++ may be peppered with unsafe calls to the point where the ROI on the port is greatly reduced. I am not trying to dunk on the effort; quite the contrary. I am eager to hear more about the goals it originally set out to achieve.

▲

Perz1val 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

None at all, the generated AST and bytecode are stated to be identical