average c++ dev
-
You don't even need
unsafe, you can just take user input and execute it in a shell and rust will let you do it. Totally insecure!Rust isn't memory safe because you can invoke another program that isn't memory safe?
-
There are no medals waiting for you by writing overly clever code. Trust me, I’ve tried. There’s no pride. Only pain.
It really depends on your field. I'm doing my master's thesis in HPC, and there, clever programming is really worth it.
-
People just think that applying arbitrary rules somehow makes software magically more secure, like with rust, as if the compiler won't just "let you" do the exact same fucking thing if you type the
unsafekeywordwrote on last edited by [email protected]I want you to stop what you're doing, pause and read your comment again slowly.
What you're arguing is analogous to: "People just think that strapping a cloth to them in the car will make driving more secure. As if someone can't just not use the seatbelt and still die in a car crash from that."It's not arbitarious rules, it's math and computer science. Wth are you some kind of science denier? Have they reached the computer science realm, like "Big O is out to get you?"
These rules do make Rust safer than c++ not in term of business logic but in terms of memory handling. I've been doing c++ for a looooooong time and once in a while there are times where we lose days if not weeks tracking down a race condition or memory bug where we could have been tracking down business logic bugs, improving code quality and coverage, adding features, etc
-
I want you to stop what you're doing, pause and read your comment again slowly.
What you're arguing is analogous to: "People just think that strapping a cloth to them in the car will make driving more secure. As if someone can't just not use the seatbelt and still die in a car crash from that."It's not arbitarious rules, it's math and computer science. Wth are you some kind of science denier? Have they reached the computer science realm, like "Big O is out to get you?"
These rules do make Rust safer than c++ not in term of business logic but in terms of memory handling. I've been doing c++ for a looooooong time and once in a while there are times where we lose days if not weeks tracking down a race condition or memory bug where we could have been tracking down business logic bugs, improving code quality and coverage, adding features, etc
That's not what I meant. I understand that rust forces things to be more secure. It's not not like there's some guarantee that rust is automatically safe, and C++ is automatically unsafe.
-
I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".
C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.
That's why I love C++
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I used to love C++ until I learned Rust. Now I think it is obnoxious, because even if you write modern C++, without raw pointers, casting and the like, you will be constantly questioning whether you do stuff right. The spec is just way too complicated at this point and it can only get worse, unless they choose to break backwards compatibility and throw out the pre C++11 bullshit
-
That's not what I meant. I understand that rust forces things to be more secure. It's not not like there's some guarantee that rust is automatically safe, and C++ is automatically unsafe.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Safe in what regards? You're being cagey on purpose. In terms of memory there is a guarantee that Rust is automatically safer than c++, period. Im business Logic? Sure you're right
-
It really depends on your field. I'm doing my master's thesis in HPC, and there, clever programming is really worth it.
Clever as in elegantly and readable or clever as in a hack that abuses a bug/feature and you need to understand the intricacies to understand half of it?
-
Clever as in elegantly and readable or clever as in a hack that abuses a bug/feature and you need to understand the intricacies to understand half of it?
Honestly, also the latter. If you are using hundreds of thousands of cores for over 100h, every single second counts.
-
I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".
C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.
That's why I love C++
I don't know which is worse. Using C++ like lazy C, or using C++ like it was designed to be used.
-
I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".
C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.
That's why I love C++
Structs with union members that allow the same place in memory to be accessed either word-wise, byte-wise, or even bit-wise are a god-sent for everyone who needs to access IO-spaces, and I'm happy my C-compiler lets me do it.
-
I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".
C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.
That's why I love C++
No need to cast as any types at all just work with bits directly /s
-
I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".
C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.
That's why I love C++
But it will let you do it if you really want to.
Now, I've seen this a couple of times in this post. The idea that the compiler will let you do anything is so bizarre to me. It's not a matter of being allowed by the software to do anything. The software will do what you goddamn tell it to do, or it gets replaced.
WE'RE the humans, we're not asking some silicon diodes for permission. What the actual fuck?!? We created the fucking thing to do our bidding, and now we're all oh pwueez mr computer sir, may I have another ADC EAX, R13? FUCK THAT! Either the computer performs like the tool it is, or it goes the way of broken hammers and lawnmowers!
-
But it will let you do it if you really want to.
Now, I've seen this a couple of times in this post. The idea that the compiler will let you do anything is so bizarre to me. It's not a matter of being allowed by the software to do anything. The software will do what you goddamn tell it to do, or it gets replaced.
WE'RE the humans, we're not asking some silicon diodes for permission. What the actual fuck?!? We created the fucking thing to do our bidding, and now we're all oh pwueez mr computer sir, may I have another ADC EAX, R13? FUCK THAT! Either the computer performs like the tool it is, or it goes the way of broken hammers and lawnmowers!
Ok gramps now take your meds and off you go to the retirement home
-
I used to love C++ until I learned Rust. Now I think it is obnoxious, because even if you write modern C++, without raw pointers, casting and the like, you will be constantly questioning whether you do stuff right. The spec is just way too complicated at this point and it can only get worse, unless they choose to break backwards compatibility and throw out the pre C++11 bullshit
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Depending on what I'm doing, sometimes rust will annoy me just as much. Often I'm doing something I know is definitely right, but I have to go through so much ceremony to get it to work in rust. The most commonly annoying example I can think of is trying to mutably borrow two distinct fields of a struct at the same time. You can't do it. It's the worst.
-
But it will let you do it if you really want to.
Now, I've seen this a couple of times in this post. The idea that the compiler will let you do anything is so bizarre to me. It's not a matter of being allowed by the software to do anything. The software will do what you goddamn tell it to do, or it gets replaced.
WE'RE the humans, we're not asking some silicon diodes for permission. What the actual fuck?!? We created the fucking thing to do our bidding, and now we're all oh pwueez mr computer sir, may I have another ADC EAX, R13? FUCK THAT! Either the computer performs like the tool it is, or it goes the way of broken hammers and lawnmowers!
I will botton for my rust compiler, I'm not going to argue with it.
-
I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".
C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.
That's why I love C++
I'm all for having the ability to do these shenanigans in principle, but prefer if they are guarded in an
unsafeblock. -
But it will let you do it if you really want to.
Now, I've seen this a couple of times in this post. The idea that the compiler will let you do anything is so bizarre to me. It's not a matter of being allowed by the software to do anything. The software will do what you goddamn tell it to do, or it gets replaced.
WE'RE the humans, we're not asking some silicon diodes for permission. What the actual fuck?!? We created the fucking thing to do our bidding, and now we're all oh pwueez mr computer sir, may I have another ADC EAX, R13? FUCK THAT! Either the computer performs like the tool it is, or it goes the way of broken hammers and lawnmowers!
when life gives you restrictive compilers, don't request permission from them! make life take the compilers back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn restrictive compilers, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give BigDanishGuy restrictive compilers! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the compilers! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible compiler that burns your house down!
-
They know. It's a comment from the code.
-
Rust isn't memory safe because you can invoke another program that isn't memory safe?
My comment is sarcastic, obviously. The argument Kairos gave is similar to this. You can still introduce vulnerabilities. The issue is normally that you introduce them accidentally. Rust gives you safety, but does not put your code into a sandbox. It looked to me like they weren't aware of this difference.
-
But it will let you do it if you really want to.
Now, I've seen this a couple of times in this post. The idea that the compiler will let you do anything is so bizarre to me. It's not a matter of being allowed by the software to do anything. The software will do what you goddamn tell it to do, or it gets replaced.
WE'RE the humans, we're not asking some silicon diodes for permission. What the actual fuck?!? We created the fucking thing to do our bidding, and now we're all oh pwueez mr computer sir, may I have another ADC EAX, R13? FUCK THAT! Either the computer performs like the tool it is, or it goes the way of broken hammers and lawnmowers!
Soldiers are supposed to question potentially-illegal orders and refuse to execute them if their commanding officer can't give a good reason why they're justified. Being in charge doesn't mean you're infallible, and there are plenty of mistakes programmers make that the compiler can detect.
