• ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Issue is, Rust is not a drop-in replacement for C. The memory safety features are just one part, and since Rust is also a “weakly” functional language, thus its prefered to write such code with it.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Anything that is drop-in replacement for C (or C++ for that matter) is going to be awful because of the same compatibility burden, imo

            • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              D is a mostly drop-in replacement (type renaming and such needed though), and it doesn’t have that issue. D even has a mode called BetterC, where the D standard library and the garbage collector is left out.

              • lad@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I was planning to check it out, but don’t have any experience yet. I thought it is more of a replacement than drop-in replacement, I may have been wrong

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, it’s not a small change. If there was a simpler way to make C memory-safe, it would have been done decades ago. It’s just a different language too, which is fair given how much younger it is.

            • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              If there was a simpler way to make C memory-safe, it would have been done decades ago.

              We’ve had compile time sanitizers (-fsanitize=blah in gcc/clang) and runtime sanitizers (valgrind) for ages. I don’t know how they stack up against rust’s compile time sanitizers, but it’s something.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                About how an Excel spreadsheet with no formulas stacks up against a corporate accounting suite. Valgrind is how you find the bleeding once you inevitably introduce a memory bug. I don’t understand all the fsanitize options, but I’m guessing they aren’t a blanket solution, exactly because memory bugs have still been inevitable.

                This thread is making me wonder how many people actually understand what Rust does. It rigorously prevents any form of memory error at all in normal code, and unsafe blocks, where needed, tend to be tiny. It makes C segmentation faults look just as goofy as JavaScript type errors.

            • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              D kind of did that (C pointers are still an option, alongside with the preferred dynamic arrays, which has the memory safety features), and once I’ve seen a C compiler fork that retroactively added D-style memory safety features, although they also very much insisted on the “const by default” mantra.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I think this is one of those things where there’s no “kind of”. Pointers were added for a reason, you’re probably not going to implement a database very well without them. If you use them, at some scale you’re inevitably going to have memory bugs. Technically, if you were to only use hardcoded printfs, C is memory safe too.

      • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not that bad, besides who cares with machines being as fast as they are nowadays?

        • Lucy :3@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I care, when I need to compile a lot of stuff multiple times on not-as-fast machines. I’ll create a private repo powered by my workstation just for this. For C stuff I don’t need to, because I can just use my workstations power via distcc.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I once saw an issue someone made for some database and said that they were learning Rust and if the database was rewritten in Rust then they could help contribute!