Rust in Android: move fast and fix things

Post by bluGill » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 9:24 PM UTC

tux3 wrote: post #37

beeflet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rust has other advantages. I think cargo is better than cmake. I think the syntax is better, I think the way dependencies and modules are handled is better. It can be annoying to write "safe" code, but once it meets a certain standard I can be confident in multithreaded applications I write. I would like to use rust to write android apps. I don't really like the whole android studio java thing.

>I think cargo is better than cmake That is an understatement. I can't think of a build system that has spawned more attempts to find something better than CMake has. There have been so many people trying to make their own C/C++ build system and/or package manager out of sheer spite for CMake that it's frankly hard to keep track. In fairness to them and to CMake, it's not a simple problem to solve. To truly know CMak…

Post by kridsdale1 » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 9:26 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #17

beeflet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rust has other advantages. I think cargo is better than cmake. I think the syntax is better, I think the way dependencies and modules are handled is better. It can be annoying to write "safe" code, but once it meets a certain standard I can be confident in multithreaded applications I write. I would like to use rust to write android apps. I don't really like the whole android studio java thing.

> I think cargo is better than cmake I expect that Google is using neither of these for most of their own code, but rather their own build system (which I think is the same between the languages). I absolutely agree if you aren't Google though.

Post by kridsdale1 » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 9:28 PM UTC

nixpulvis wrote: post #21

bla3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they use Rust for new code and C++ changes are all in old code, this could be explained just by older code being more risky to change.

Funny, another commenter on this post was saying the opposite, that Rust was likely being used to just port existing features and that was easier because there were probably good tests for it already. If you've actually written considerable amounts of Rust and C++, these statistics don't require justification. In my opinion it's completely expected that Rust code is easier to write correctly.

Post by pizlonator » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 9:31 PM UTC

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #44

pizlonator wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect memory safety vulns to be dropping in most C/C++ projects due to better practices

This contradicts what Google has reported about their own code, which is that most vulnerabilities are in new code

Post by dwattttt » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 9:34 PM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #46

selfmodruntime wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't 'cast' anything. The compiler prevents this because it would allow references that outlive their owners. Freely 'casting' only works for data that is static in nature anyways, at which point a coercion is taking place. Any other way involves `std::mem::transmute` or `Box::leak` and the like.

Here is a nice segfault in perfectly legal safe Rust https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio... I'd call it casting thought technically maybe it's not you might want to call it something else? You don't need transmute or leak. The issue is only 10 years old now https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25860

  memcpy(0x10000, 0x20000, 0x10);