Programming

17540 readers

77 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

145

C++ creator rebuts White House warning (www.infoworld.com)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by seth@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Python is memory safe? Can't you access/address memory with C bindings?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In Rust however you must sign a contact (using unsafe) in order to play with raw pointers. Unsafe is you the programmer promising that you followed the rules. This is like how C++ says it's illegal to write UB and your program will break (and it's your fault) but enforced through a special type of block

Which is what I said, this is about the default.

My issue is not that I don't understand Rust provides static guarantees. My issue is that you raised a comparison between unsafe Rust and C++ code. In that comparison, you're basically saying "writing an entire program in a rust unsafe block would be better than writing an entire program in C++" and I think that is very wrong.

Rust unsafe is not better than normal C++ while following best practices for maintaining memory safety.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 4 points 8 months ago

I wouldn’t be so sure myself. Even unsafe Rust still uses the borrow checker, for instance. And you still get stricter checks around overflows and such as well. What unsafe does is that it unlocks the ability to use raw pointers and call other unsafe functions (among a few other things), but importantly it doesn’t disable the safety features that Rust has built-in. While unsafe Rust does indeed have some gotchas on its own, I think in general you’re still better off even with unsafe Rust than with C++.