logoalt Hacker News

kibwenyesterday at 2:24 PM1 replyview on HN

> And how is this feasible for a systems language? Rust becomes too impotent for its main use case if you only use safe rust.

No, this is completely incorrect, and one of the most interesting and surprising results of Rust as an experiment in language design. An enormous proportion of Rust codebases need not have any unsafe code of their own whatsoever, and even those that do tend to have unsafe blocks in an extreme minority of files. Rust's hypothesis that unsafe code can be successfully encapsulated behind safe APIs suitable for the vast majority of uses has been experimentally proven in practice. Ironically, the average unsafe block in practice is a result of needing to call a function written in C, which is a symptom of not yet having enough alternatives written in Rust. I have worked on both freestanding OSes and embedded applications written in Rust--both domains where you would expect copious usage of unsafe--where I estimate less than 5% of the files actually contained unsafe blocks, meaning a 20x reduction in the effort needed to verify them (in Fred Brooks units, that's two silver bullets worth).

> Coders historically cannot be trusted to manually manage memory, unless they're rust coders apparently

Most Rust coders are not manually managing memory on the regular, or doing anything else that requires unsafe code. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's entirely possible to have spent your entire career writing Rust code without ever having been forced to write an `unsafe` block, in the same way that Java programmers can go their entire career without using JNI.

> By definition, it isn't possible for a tool to reason about unsafe code, otherwise the rust compiler would do it

Of course it is. The Rust compiler reasons about unsafe code all the time. What it can't do is definitely prove many properties of unsafe code, which is why the compiler conservatively requires the annotation. But there are dozens of built-in warnings and Clippy lints that analyze unsafe blocks and attempts to flag issues early. In addition, Miri provides an interpreter in which to run unsafe code which provides dynamic rather than static analysis.


Replies

bcjdjsndonyesterday at 2:47 PM

> No, this is completely incorrect,

Show me system level rust code that only uses safe then... You can't because its impossible. I doesn't matter that it's a minority of files (!), the simple fact is you can't program systems without using unsafe. Rewrite the c dependencies in rust and the amount of unsafe code increases massively

> Most Rust coders are not manually managing memory on the regular

Another sidestep. If coders in general cannot be trusted to manage memory, why can a rust coder be trusted all of a sudden?

> . But there are dozens of built-in warnings and Clippy lints that analyze unsafe blocks and attempts to flag issues early.

We already had that, it wasn't enough, hence..... rust, remember?

show 2 replies