Just in case you thought Rust was going to save you.https://twitter.com/robertswiecki/status/988121188474982402 …
-
-
Replying to @BenLaurie @rootkovska
Well, "no memory corruption" is progress in my book.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg @rootkovska
It would be, but that's not what Rust promises...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It does promise that, even in presence of threading, except for bugs in unsafe blocks or linked C code (same thing basically) or in the compiler. You can go a long way without unsafe, it's mostly for bindings and for optimized data structure libraries.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It promises memory safety, which does not mean that what is stored in memory is what is intended...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Memory safety" is surey the same as "absence of memory corruption". Of course there will still be bugs, just not of the "accidentally writing into the wrong part of memory" kind.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think you need to be precise in claims. Memory safety I understand. "Absence of memory corruption" seems to be a broader church which includes not having the expected content in memory that code is allowed to write. Safety is about what you are not allowed to write/read.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I have never, ever seen someone use the term "memory corruption" to refer to anything but violation of temporal and spatial memory safety. Not once.
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.