151–160 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me being humorless (read: not just rolling with your cop-out) is a symptom of the Rust hype. Doesn’t even make sense.
you feeling the need to defend it at every jibe. chill. rust is not a cult
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think Rust’s actual safety properties aren’t overhyped, although they may be subject to misunderstanding about their exact extent. Concretely: spatial and temporal memory safety are good things, and Rust achieves both. It’s not unique in this regard, nor is it unique in not having a formal definition.
Double negation makes things ambigious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point, I think, was that "safety" presumptions about Rust are often exaggerated or poorly misunderstood due to hype. That could certainly lead to problems
I don’t think Rust’s actual safety properties aren’t overhyped, although they may be subject to misunderstanding about their exact extent. Concretely: spatial and temporal memory safety are good things, and Rust achieves both. It’s not unique in this regard, nor is it unique in not having a formal definition.
Isnt that what overhype means? Also no one is saying that Rust is unique in being overhyped. It is true of almost any language worth writing in, including c, lisp, python, haskell, type script etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you feeling the need to defend it at every jibe. chill. rust is not a cult
A jibe is some sort of playful banter based on a literal or exaggerated truth. Since your comment does not lampoon any real deficiency except when being hypocritical, there is nothing to defend. Maybe you should wear a sign on your torso: will make irrational points and then complain about persecution when that is pointed out. I don’t know. It’s just one more idea for when we decide to put all the anti-Rust people in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A jibe is some sort of playful banter based on a literal or exaggerated truth. Since your comment does not lampoon any real deficiency except when being hypocritical, there is nothing to defend. Maybe you should wear a sign on your torso: will make irrational points and then complain about persecution when that is pointed out. I don’t know. It’s just one more idea for when we decide to put all the anti-Rust people in…
Its sunday, shouldnt you be in church of holy borrow checker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An honest title would be "Compiling a subset of F* to partially Safe Rust, Partially Formalized" Sadly that is the name of the game in conference publishing. Make a big claim in the title and hope the reviewer does not read the fine print. > If I may translate from the language of academia. "We present beautiful rules in figure 4. But in reality, our implementation relies on a large number of hacks." Er, this I can…
As someone who recently reviewed hubdreds of abstracts for a mid-sized open source conference: our committee would have declined that talk due to the misleading title. Has academia really that low standards?
Again, this does not seem the case here (this one was likely uploaded to ArXiv after being rejected) and I thnk the opposite (good papers being rejected) is way more common in academia, so I wouldn't frame it as "low standards". Just an unfortunate outcome of "publish or perish" in a conferences-first community that highly values a small subset of all venues.
I've ported some projects to Rust (including C, where I've used C2Rust as first step), and I've drawn some conclusions. 1. Converting a C program to Rust, even if it includes unsafe code, often uncovers bugs quickly thanks to Rust’s stringent constraints (bounds checking, strict signatures, etc.). 2. automated C to Rust conversion is IMO something that will never be solved entirely, because the design of C program is…
> automated C to Rust conversion is IMO something that will never be solved entirely Automated conversion of C to safe fast Rust is hard. Automated conversion of C to safe Rust in general is much easier - you just need to represent memory as an array, and treat pointers as indices into said array. Now you can do everything C can do - unchecked pointer arithmetic, unions etc - without having to fight the borrow checke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think Rust’s actual safety properties aren’t overhyped, although they may be subject to misunderstanding about their exact extent. Concretely: spatial and temporal memory safety are good things, and Rust achieves both. It’s not unique in this regard, nor is it unique in not having a formal definition.
> although they may be subject to misunderstanding about their exact extent Isnt that what overhype means? Also no one is saying that Rust is unique in being overhyped. It is true of almost any language worth writing in, including c, lisp, python, haskell, type script etc.
(If there's nothing unique here, it doesn't make sense to single any particular language out. But each language does have unique properties: Python is a great rapid development language, Rust offers zero-cost abstractions for memory safety, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> although they may be subject to misunderstanding about their exact extent Isnt that what overhype means? Also no one is saying that Rust is unique in being overhyped. It is true of almost any language worth writing in, including c, lisp, python, haskell, type script etc.
I don't see much overhype coming from Rust practitioners. I see a lot of people who care about spatial and temporal memory safety, for which the hype with Rust appears largely appropriate. I've yet to see people (incorrectly) extend this to a claim that Rust solves all security problems, which would meet the definition of overhype. (If there's nothing unique here, it doesn't make sense to single any particular langua…
That is like saying I don't see much overhype about AI from machine learning engineers. I am a ml engineer, and like myself great majority of ml engineers will tell you that there is certainly overhype about the field and do not engage in the overhype. Which is not to say that the field isnt producing some really cool results
> I've yet to see people (incorrectly) extend this to a claim that Rust solves all security problems, which would meet the definition of overhype.
Ive seen plenty of questionable Rust rewrites due to solving security problems
> Python is a great rapid development language
Saying to a Lisper that Python is a great rapid development language is like selling Rust safety to an Ada person :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you feeling the need to defend it at every jibe. chill. rust is not a cult
It's weird to imagine for cniles but discussing a language doesn't inherently involve defending it, especially when it's just someone correcting someone else. I know, that's a very weird concept :^)