Oh oh, who would have thought. A memory-safe rust at last. With no unsafe allowed, even type safe. Unless you forget about their type bugs: https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs.

So maybe eliminate type and concurrency unsafeties also then in the next decades or so.

▲

bayesnet 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The existence of a soundness bug in the typechecker doesn’t refute the value of soundness as a language design contract.

If anything it’s the opposite: issues demonstrated by cve-rs are _language bugs_ and are _fixable_ in principle. “Safe Rust should be memory-safe” is a well-defined, falsifiable contract that the compiler can be measured against. Meanwhile memory unsafety is a feature of the semantics of C++ and so it would be absurd to file a bug against gcc complaining that it compiled your faulty code.

▲

rurban 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The language design contract is unsafe by default. In memory, types and concurrency. What are you talking about? There are unsafe blocks all over the stdlib. And concurrency safety would need to get rid of their blocking IO, which they haven't even acknowledged.

	▲	quotemstr 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There are unsafe blocks all over the stdlib Physics is unsafe. Something, somewhere needs to provide the safe core. > And concurrency safety would need to get rid of their blocking IO, which they haven't even acknowledged. Is your position that blocking IO can't be compatible with concurrency safety? That's a strange claim. Can you explain?

▲

marcosscriven 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I see you’ve been downvoted, but honestly this is news to me.

I see that repo is two years old - are there flaws in Rust that aren’t edge cases that would make it not memory safe?

▲

pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is called OCaml, for those that want it.