By no non-static allocation I don't mean programmer-facing global state. Stack bounds subject to static analysis and automatic storage is fine as long as it can be made memory-safe.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Does #![no_std] Rust meet this criterion?
-
I'm not sure. I think Rust is way too complex but my opinion might differ if I actually learned it.
-
I'm also not clear on whether it has any good model to enforce static analyzability of stack usage.
-
For static stack usage you would be getting into dependent types, idris is one but it's IMO too functional and brings the complexity and implicit knowledge most functional languages have.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I believe graceful failure (at the system level, not necessarily the process level) is an easier, if not better, path to safety. Shortage of dynamic memory is not the only reason programs can fail; failure needs to be handled anyway.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.