Comment Try this simple query (Score 1) 115
Type "play Minecraft".
Type "play Minecraft".
it has no mechanism for independent validation or verification using cross compilation from multiple toolchains
You can compile an older toolchain with mrustc (which is a C++ project), and then work your way up to the recent version.
Rust is often regarded as being “memory safe”, which it absolutely is not, since it has an “unsafe” keyword. You can't have an “unsafe” keyword and at the same time claim you're safe
"Unsafe" sections in Rust are typically small isolated code blocks, in contrary to legacy system programming languages like C and C++, where the entire application is unsafe.
Even without the unsafe keyword, you can still corrupt memory
No, you cannot corrupt memory outside of unsafe block. As far as I remember, there was one compiler bug where you could bypass the borrow checker with some very tricky code, however I don't think you can find this in production.
P.S. "Rewrite it in X" is as old as the programming itself, but there wasn't yet such a major step forward in the whole industry in the short term. Also Rust is a pleasant language to use, regardless of it's safety guarantees, so it's natural that people like it and do a rewrites. I don't see a problem with that.
While the entire application written in C (and C++) is inherently unsafe by design, with Rust you have isolated code blocks, which makes it much easier to review and find any potential bugs.
I doubt many command line utils will be updated anytime soon. Most of them have been a done deal for years.
Yes and not because "they are done", but also because few people are really interested in maintaining and expanding GNU code written 30 years ago in the language which isn't appropriate anymore to write anything beyond the very low-level OS kernels.
So is C++ and there are far more C++ devs than rust devs and they could have been rewritten in C++ years ago but sensible people realised that if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Or may be because C++ isn't fun to work with at all and it introduces no real advantages because it has the same fundamental issues as C.
Wow, cutting edge! See C++.
C++ has no traits, no thread safety, no built-in utf-8 strings, no proper macros, no immutability by default, it is still inherently unsafe even without using the raw pointers.
So is Python, perhaps they should be rewritten in that if popularity is a reason.
Why not, it will be an interesting project and I can only welcome it. I don't understand your point in complaining that some people are busy doing something that you don't like.
Are there many safety issues in these utilities? I presume they've done code analysis and found loads then?
Not many, but there are some discovered: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord/... and who knows how many undiscovered. And it's not only about the existing code but also adding a new code.
BS. There's nothing special about Rust wrt maintanability plus there's a FAR greater pool of C devs than Rust devs who can check any new code.
Well, even without it's built-in compile-time safety, Rust is a modern language with a lot of features missing in C (just naming a few like traits, generics, utf-8 strings, FP-style constructs, immutability, standard library, thread safety, async, etc.), and it is much more attractive for the new developers.
With some prompt refinements, corrections, etc, done in 2 hours. Saved me 2 weeks of manual work.
The earth is like a tiny grain of sand, only much, much heavier.