Yes, disclaimer, or necessary predefense here? ;)
Looking at rust, wanting to play with it, liking it very much from what I have seen, to some degree... still it also seems to develop some complexity problems, and is it fully stable in regard to language now? Can we take it to a certification body already?
Or will it also become the next C++ with the later on-boltings? Anyway..
> “C++ is fine, you just need to do things the modern way and avoid making any mistakes”
I know I will be burned now, but:
Which is kind of true if you stick to modern C++ (>11) .. and if you do that (maybe enforced by a style checker or some new cpp standard setting?) you even strip out the "avoid making any mistakes". Again, fully admitted, C++ is kind of a grown and ugly language, with many holes that you could use if you don't systemically forbid them.. but if it just would make real step to enforce / deprecate with a safe-strict-standard all the bad old C/C++ heritage and there'd be something like an enforced safe-C++, I think it would not be too far away from Rust..
.. because I lately read a Rust paper "Safe Systems Programming in Rust" and what did I needed to read there?:
"There are a number of data types whose implementations fundamentally depend on shared mutable state and thus cannot be type-checked according to Rust’s strict ownership discipline. To support such data types, Rust embraces the judicious use of unsafe code encapsulated within safe APIs." (and more schizophrene explanations how we still can do everything in Rust, but are safe follow..)
If that is the case, then this is really not too far away from safe&modern-C++, where you only touch the unsafe parts for hard to find last bits of performance?
Especially, and hear me out .. what I'm not getting is consider the typcal embedded/automotive and similar applications, which usually run single threaded and without any dynamic memory allocation and by that already exclude all of the data-race and other problems. You are basically left with bounds-checking on arrays and similar buffers, and you can really, no you will have that if you use modern C++?
I'm really confused more than ever :) .. but the rust complexity curve does not seem to be only high for the devs, but also for the orgs who require standardization&certification. Hope that will follow now, and also some way to completely abandon unsafeness completely in Rust before we put it so high up the throne? and plea
Haven't we seen any Rust security issues because there is so little software out with it? If some memory unsafeness in some Rust program happens, will we always hear then Rust is safe, this was just unsafe code (like today it was all every time the hacker's fault?? :D )
> “C++ is fine, you just need to do things the modern way and avoid making any mistakes”
I know I will be burned now, but: Which is kind of true if you stick to modern C++ (>11) .. and if you do that (maybe enforced by a style checker or some new cpp standard setting?) you even strip out the "avoid making any mistakes". Again, fully admitted, C++ is kind of a grown and ugly language, with many holes that you could use if you don't systemically forbid them.. but if it just would make real step to enforce / deprecate with a safe-strict-standard all the bad old C/C++ heritage and there'd be something like an enforced safe-C++, I think it would not be too far away from Rust..
.. because I lately read a Rust paper "Safe Systems Programming in Rust" and what did I needed to read there?: "There are a number of data types whose implementations fundamentally depend on shared mutable state and thus cannot be type-checked according to Rust’s strict ownership discipline. To support such data types, Rust embraces the judicious use of unsafe code encapsulated within safe APIs." (and more schizophrene explanations how we still can do everything in Rust, but are safe follow..)
If that is the case, then this is really not too far away from safe&modern-C++, where you only touch the unsafe parts for hard to find last bits of performance?
Especially, and hear me out .. what I'm not getting is consider the typcal embedded/automotive and similar applications, which usually run single threaded and without any dynamic memory allocation and by that already exclude all of the data-race and other problems. You are basically left with bounds-checking on arrays and similar buffers, and you can really, no you will have that if you use modern C++?
I'm really confused more than ever :) .. but the rust complexity curve does not seem to be only high for the devs, but also for the orgs who require standardization&certification. Hope that will follow now, and also some way to completely abandon unsafeness completely in Rust before we put it so high up the throne? and plea
Haven't we seen any Rust security issues because there is so little software out with it? If some memory unsafeness in some Rust program happens, will we always hear then Rust is safe, this was just unsafe code (like today it was all every time the hacker's fault?? :D )