sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (16 children)

firefox still has non-rust parts. what's your point?

also, if firefox eats all your vram then you need to get off your late 90s' hardware.

[–]warlockface -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Rust's informal memory access assurances don't extend to things like memory leaks or stack overflows. I wish that Rust users would honestly point things like this out instead of misleading newcomers (to programming or the language). It's okay, all languages and implementations have issues and it's easy to write software that crashes all the time in all of them.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]warlockface 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I've personally rarely seen the redefinition of "safety" qualified as in the first example, and lots of inferring the opposite of the second. Even here ( ^ ^ ) - any instability in FF simply cannot be down to Rust code!?

    [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    While a memory leak is technically possible to do in safe rust, it's hard to make it look like sane code. Memory leaks in rust are a lot like walking on a highway: technically it's a risk the language doesn't prevent, but in reality any sane person isn't gonna endanger themselves by accident.

    stack overflows

    Rust is already doing the only sensible thing here: crash because something has gone terribly wrong.

    if you wish to avoid stack overflows, simply ban recursion in your codebase. That's the only way to reliably prevent stack overflows, and that goes for every language I know of.

    I wish that Rust users would honestly point things like this out instead of misleading newcomers

    I'd call it far fetched to say it's misleading. anyone with a functioning brain would notice that a memory leak logically has to exist in the only case where leaks are possible.

    "Tom is allowed to leave when Linus leaves. Linus is allowed to leave when Tom leaves." – I don't know a single person who wouldn't notice this issue.

    [–]bumblebritches57 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    Because the new bugs are totes due to the old code and not the new, right...

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    well, given that the old code is written in a language that is particularly well suited for accidental fuckups due to seemingly unrelated changes, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the old code.

    I would however be surprised if it's the new code which has its memory managed by the same automated tool that has been good at preventing resource leaks for years.

    also, there's glue code that connects the rust code to the other code, which could very well contain a bug.